Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. I'm going to start off today's episode by talking about something that is important to me, and that is, well, all the things that I talk about on the podcast are important to me, even the lighthearted moments, but in this particular case, I am talking about the fact that I am, for all intents and purposes, celebrating the second year of the podcast and the beginning of the third year. I published my first episode on March 16th, 2021, and we're close to that date right now. So it's in some cases hard for me to believe that it's been two years. It really flew by quickly. It seems the older we get, the faster time goes, though that doesn't happen because there's 24 hours in a day. And they go by at the same time every minute. So in any case, I've really enjoyed doing the podcast, and I will continue to do it for as long as I can, for as long as I want to, for as long as I have something to talk about, especially if I think that it hasn't been talked about enough or it doesn't get talked about in the mainstream press or media, whatever you want to call it. And in a lot of cases, that's what I'm talking about in today's episode. Something that I don't believe has been talked about enough on the mainstream media platform. So I hope you're ready for this one. Buckle up, let's go. Let me preface what I want to talk about by saying that if you're under a certain age, let's say 45 to 50 years old, you don't have firsthand experience with the way we used to get the news. Now, if you're under, say, 45 years of age, try to imagine for a minute our society obtaining news information from sources that for the most part came from trusted news sources. Now I know that that may seem like a play on words. Trusted news sources? What does that even mean? It's hard to even comprehend in today's society. In any case, a trusted news source predates cable, the internet, social media, and corporate ownership of what is permitted to be air quotes newsworthy. Now, one more thing. If you were born in, let's say, 1975, you were coming of age in the 90s when a lot of cable news stations kind of started cropping up. Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC, and all the other cable shows that are out there. However, in 1980, I think it was, CNN launched. And if you were born in 1975, you were a mere five years old and couldn't care less about any kind of news, no matter the source that it was coming from. So there's perspective here that I think is important whenever we're talking about something that is newsworthy or that is something that comes from the press. The bottom line today, however, is that very little of what is reported on nearly every so-called news outlet can be trusted as news. So the $64,000 question is what do we do? How do we get the truth? How do we know that something is the news or makes the news or is just to benefit the corporate media in today's society? Can we actually know what is truly news and what is methodically designed to be misleading as the news, but it's only masquerading as news? How do we know? How can we know? I'm not sure that I have an answer for that today, or any day for that matter. Here's what I know and what I'm sure of, and that is that when one conducts an internet search for something that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative, one is hard pressed to find credible information. In most cases, it seems, what we're getting is what the news source, quote unquote, wants us to get. And I'm sorry, that is despicable, if you ask me. It's nefarious and it needs to stop, but will it? I don't know. Furthermore, when there's only one source that's talking about something that none of the other sources want to touch with a ten foot pole, then it raises questions, particularly why? What does a supposed news agency have to fear about something that may make a particular political party look bad? Seriously, and I'm asking this next question rhetorically because I already know the answer. Why does political party matter? What does that have to do with anything related to how an a news agency reports the news, a news outlet, the press, mainstream media, cable, internet, I don't know, whatever your source is, I couldn't care less. What does political party have to do with any of that? And sadly, it seems as though, in fact, it it's beyond seeming so, it is so that the mainstream press seems to favor one political party, and that's the Democrats. Now, I couldn't care less, again, if it's the Republican Party that the mainstream media professed and tried to support in every way possible. It doesn't matter to me. I don't care about the political party when it comes to news agencies or the news, the press, whatever, has to report on the news. Frankly, all of this to me is an assault on our liberty and our freedom and ultimately the Constitution. The Constitution is being stomped into the ground by news agencies that are supposed to, and indeed have a constitutional duty to be a part of a free press. Now, a free press doesn't go around picking on or ostracizing a political group or party or anyone else because it favors them or it doesn't favor them, whichever the case may be. It seems to me that the press, their duty, their job is to be like a referee. You don't take sides, you call it as you see it. If it's baseball, you call balls and strikes. You don't make calls that favor one team over the other. If it's football, you're a referee, you're an official. The news, the press, whatever you want to call these people today, I have a lot of other names that I would call them, but it's not fit for the younger audience or for, well, you get the idea. The notion that the press is supposed to take sides and support one side over the other is it's unbelievable. It shouldn't take place, but it does. And if there are people out there who do not believe that, then I suggest you get a wide variety of sources and you look at them and you try to weigh each of those sources and try to determine who's telling the truth, if that's even possible today. I don't even know if it is. In any case, one has to weigh the source. One has to look at it as objectively as possible. And indeed, that is the job of the press, to be as objective as possible and not allow their personal feelings or their ideology to cloud judgment. It's the same as any judge who sets on the bench. Their job is to weigh the evidence, and whatever direction that evidence takes them, that is the way they should go no matter what. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. You weigh the evidence and you make a judgment. Now the press has a similar role. They don't necessarily judge the freedom of individuals and they don't have the power to send somebody to the big house for a period of years. That's not within their realm of responsibility, thank goodness. But what their job is, is to make sure that upon looking at what is before them, then report on what is before them and keep their personal feelings aside. Now, you might say, Well, Rex, you're getting extremely excited about this. Well, yeah, I am. And I have reason to be excited about it, and you know what? If you're not, shall we say, bothered by it, then maybe you should be bothered by it. And then maybe you would do something about it. And doing something about it means straying away from news sources that are not objective and honest. I ventured to say that it is possible to find an honest news source, but it's going to take some digging. It's not just going to come to you. Gone are the days when you can put the television on or the radio and hear the news and just the news and not all this other crap that has nothing to do with news. So there you go. Now, earlier this week there was some released surveillance footage from the January 6th, 2021 incident. But y'all know what I'm talking about, so let's leave it at that for now. And the reason why, I might add, that this footage was released is because it was released under the new House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, who happens to be a Republican. I ask you why wasn't this footage released before the Republicans got control of the House and Kevin McCarthy was painfully elected as the new Speaker of the House? Why didn't this happen under Nancy Pelosi? These are questions that all reasonable thinking people should be asking right now. Did they have something to hide? Now, previously I have seen reports where there was 14,000 hours of video surveillance that was released. And when you look at that on the outset, you think, wow, 14,000 hours, that's a lot. Well, guess what? There were some 41,000 hours of video from January 6th released by Kevin McCarthy. And he released these exclusively, at least as far as I understand, to Tucker Carlson, who is an employee of Fox News. Now, I couldn't care less. McCarthy could have released them to any one of the three major networks, all the cable outlets, and anyone else that he decided he wanted to release them to. But he released them to Tucker Carlson. So there you go. Who cares? What we should really be caring about is that there was an additional 27,000 odd hours of video surveillance that we didn't know about. We weren't told about these additional surveillance hours. So as far as the American people were concerned, they didn't exist, but apparently they did and do exist. Why then were these additional hours, thousands of them, kept from the American people? That is the question you and I should be asking ourselves right now. Well, in a news article from Joseph M. Haneman, I think I'm saying his name right, he said this quote, defense attorneys on the January 6th criminal cases complained that video and other evidence beneficial to their clients have not been disclosed by the government as required under Supreme Court rulings, close quote. So it would seem that they were beyond annoyed that they didn't have access to this additional video evidence. He goes on to say, quote, but the massive digital evidence cash has been tightly controlled and even manipulated to great effort on public opinion. Unfettered public access to all of the video, if it is granted, will crack the legacy media narrative even more and widen the political divide in America. End of quote. This guy, Ray Epps, whoever that is, we still don't really know who that is. And unfortunately, it does talk about Ashley Babbitt, who was essentially murdered, and the individual who murdered her has to this day not been held to account. The article says this quote Numerous defense attorneys have complained that the Department of Justice has not provided all the exculpatory evidence as required by law, end of quote. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if Joseph Hanneman is a lawyer either. However, this word exculpatory is important to talk about for a minute, so that's why I'm going to do it. The word exculpatory comes from the word exculpate, which is to clear from alleged fault or guilt. So if there is exculpatory evidence that would clear some of these participants in the January 6th incident that has caused so much turmoil amongst people and particular political parties, then wouldn't it make sense that that evidence ought to be able to be presented to either exonerate the person or prove their guilt? It makes sense to me, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? One thing I do know, ladies and gentlemen, is that it is extremely important, not only in this case, but in every single case, that exculpatory evidence be allowed to be presented, irrespective of where that evidence comes from. In this particular case, because it comes from thousands of additional video surveillance hours from the Capitol, no less, there's a reason why this evidence was kept back from the media. It seems very simple and straightforward to me. Why is it, again, I'm going back to political parties and the media, why does it matter to the media what political party is responsible for this or for that? If there is something that has been done or evidence that has been withheld by these so-called elected leaders, and then it happens to come out, then why is that something that we should hide? Why is it that there are people in our government who, up to this time, have done an incredibly great job of hiding this additional video evidence from those who should be seeing it? That is the question that I would ask. And I think it's a question that all of us should be asking, irrespective of political party. That makes no difference to me, and it should make no difference to you. There's a lot more that I could have talked about today, but I'm not going to. I want you to think about it. I want you to sincerely investigate it. Take some time. You know what? If your favorite show's on or you're binge watching something on Netflix, spend an hour of that time looking into this. You owe it to yourself. We all owe it to ourselves to find the truth. And wherever that leads us, then so be it. We shouldn't be concerned about that. And if we haven't done anything wrong, then all the more reason why we should not be concerned about where the evidence takes us. The people who should be concerned, however, are the people who have kept this information back from the American people. Those are the people who should be concerned. And you will see that there will be a concerted effort to defend those who have kept this information back from the American people. And to me, I'm sorry, that is despicable, and it's it should be punished under the full extent of the law. And that takes me to the quote of the episode, and I actually have a couple of quotes that I want to read. The first is from John Adams, who said, quote, our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly andadequate to the government of any other. He said this most profoundly, I might add, quote, The Constitution knows all the human inhabitants of this country as the people. It makes, as I have said before, no discrimination in favor of or against any class of the people, but is fitted to protect and preserve the rights of all without reference to color, size, or any physical peculiarities. That is a profound quote, and more importantly, it is the truth. Ladies and gentlemen, if you can think it, you can plan it. If you can plan it, you can do it.