Why did the lawyer’s chicken cross the road? Answer he had an easement. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker B

Welcome to the Cross examiner podcast, the Internet’s courtroom in the case of Rationality versus religion. Here, our host uses his experience as both an attorney and an atheist to put religion on trial. We saw solemnly swear that it is the most informative, educational, and entertaining jury duty you will ever do. And now it’s time for the Cross examiner. • • • • • • • • •

Speaker A

Welcome to the Cross examiner podcast. I am your host, the Cross examiner. I am an atheist. I am an attorney, and I am alarmed. I’m alarmed about the rise of Christian nationalism in this country and the massive amount of misinformation that is powering that rise today. I thought we’d do something a little different than a full episode. It may go as long as an episode, but it won’t be a single topic. Deep dive. Here’s what I’m going to do. First, I want to explain a common attack that activists online that are secular or atheists suffer • • and then start this new type of series of coverage that I’m going to do to respond to that attack. And the attack is this. • • It says, hey, if you’re an atheist, you don’t believe in God, why do you care so much? Why are you out on the Internet doing all of this activist stuff? And the answer is pretty simple. I shouldn’t have to care if it weren’t for • • • people who do believe in gods are trying to take over my government and be mean to people, right? • • They want to deny health care to people based on their own religious beliefs. They want to deny marriage rights. They want to control everybody’s lives and their bodies based on what they think their God wants them to do. And that’s the optimistic approach. The cynical approach is some of those people don’t actually believe it, but they’re using religion to gain power. And into that exchange of, I get power if I pretend to believe in your religion, I have to follow your whims voters as to what we should do with the power I get. So I will give you something as long as I can give tax breaks to my rich friends. See, for example, Donald Trump. So that’s the short answer. Another example of that answer is there’s a content creator on YouTube that was prolific many years ago and made many, many points about the absurdity, specifically of Christian religion. Some of the beliefs, the inconsistencies and the crazy beliefs the crazy beliefs that you must hold in order to come up with some of the reasoning that we start hearing. His name was non stamp collector, • as, uh, in he doesn’t collect stamps. And his point by using that name was • • • atheists could be kind of a weird term, like, why is there even a term for atheism? Well, it’s because there a are theists people who believe in God theism the belief of a God? But it’s more than that. It’s because they’re out doing something and I have to come out in opposition to their root idea. • • If I could talk people out of bad policy without getting to the religious level, I would. But because their religious beliefs motivate their unscientific policies, • • we have to go into the religious beliefs. There are people who will do exorcisms on their kids and sometimes kill them. I think that’s a bad idea not only because you’re killing your kid, but because generally you are taking drastic measures based on things you believe, based on insufficient evidence. And when you do that, you can really hurt people. I e kill your kids. Same thing with the climate change. Here is Representative John Shimkus from Illinois back in when was this? 2009, I think. 2009, march 25. Let me set the stage here. This guy’s a member of the House Committee on Energy • • • and Commerce. And here he is saying we don’t need to worry about global change at all because the Bible tells us that God won’t ever flood the Earth again. • • All right, here he is.

Speaker C

So I want to start with, um, • • • • Genesis eight, M, verse 21 and, uh, 22. • • Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done • • • as long as the Earth endures seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease. I believe that’s the infallible word of God and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation. The second verse comes from Matthew 24. • • And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. • • • • Man, um, • • will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. • • Um, • • and I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith and we can get into the theological discourse of that position. But I do believe God’s word is infallible unchanging perfect. • •

Speaker A

God’s Word is perfect, • • • and what he doesn’t say is. And I believe that this book is a perfect representation of that word. And the people who wrote it understand what his word is, et cetera. But here he is. He’s addressing Committee on Energy and he is justifying why he thinks we shouldn’t worry at all and spend one dime on even researching, much less doing anything about climate change. And in case he was unclear, he also brought a witness out to testify that we needn’t worry about too much carbon in the atmosphere. In fact, we are a carbon starved planet because we have so much less carbon now than some periods in the past when there was a lot of growth, a lot of plants and, uh, whatnot and he even ends this statement with he can’t resist himself. Here he is talking to that witness. So if we just decrease the use.

Speaker C

Of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?

Speaker A

Yes, indeed you are. The US. Forest Service has very good figures showing the enormous growth in the cubic yard.

Speaker C

So all our good intentions could be for vain. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world • • are saying.

Speaker A

You could indeed.

Speaker C

You’re quite right, and I would just the, uh, the basic finish with this comment is the Earth will not be destroyed by a flood, and I yield back my time.

Speaker A

So that’s who we’re dealing with. These are the people that have been elected to determine the future of the planet, • • and they are • • citing scripture in committee as to reasons why we should not worry about climate change. And even when they’re talking about, well, • • • if we try to lower carbon emissions, we’re doing away with plant food. Maybe, yeah, but maybe that’s a good thing. Uh, it’s a much more complex question. Right? There’s a whole ecosystem that we have to consider, but • • very handy ops. The Earth won’t be destroyed by a flood. This is back in 2009, as I said, but this goes on every single day. This is a great example of it, but this is the answer to why we need to worry, why we atheists are concerned, because I can’t go to Representative Shimkis and say, we need to at least study climate change, and then here’s why we should study it. He will say, no, I disagree with you, not because the data is wrong or, um, your concerns aren’t valid. From an interesting standpoint, I disagree with you because my God has told me not to worry about it. • • And you can’t debate that without saying, well, okay, where’s the evidence of this God? Like, what is this based on? And that’s where they fail to bring up anything they point to. A book says a thing, right? The Bible says this thing, and I believe it. And that’s why we do what we do, because that sort of thinking pervades your whole life when you’re used to that type of thinking. The book says a thing, an authority says a thing, and I’m just going to accept it, despite it seeming to contradict a lot of other my experiences. It can lead you to believe those things from other sources as well. Political leaders can tell you something. Cult leaders can tell you something. Corporations can tell you something. And if you’re not used to doing that critical thinking and doing the heavy lifting of figuring out what’s real and what’s not real, what’s actually supported by evidence and what’s not, it can lead to erroneous thinking throughout your entire life, not just within the realm of religion here, it’s explicitly religious. I’m voting against this because my God tells me to vote against it. So what I thought I’d do is because in researching episodes, I like to do these deep dive episodes where we are fully, as much as we can in an hour or an hour and a half, fully educated on what’s really at play in a, uh, legal religious context. • • In researching those episodes, I find dozens of stories every day that are related to, if not directly, people • • • with religious beliefs trying to do bad things to other people or to the planet or whatever. • • • I also find stories of just people believing things based on insufficient evidence and causing harm to themselves or others. And I want to talk about them all, but, uh, I just don’t have time. • • So I thought since we constantly get criticized for Why do you Care, I thought I’d create a sort of quick take episode where I take some of the best stories every week and highlight them and just point them out and say, this is why we care. So maybe that’s what we’ll call this series, why We Care, episode one. So strap in. This, uh, is kind of unscripted. So I apologize if it’s a little fly by the seat my pants. But let’s dive into the stories this week. And this is, again, why we care. People doing things or making big important decisions based on insufficient evidence, sometimes religious based, sometimes otherwise. Let’s start with a non religious one. • • • • Former President Donald Trump was indicted today. Today is a historic day. It’s March 30, 2023, and a former president was indicted for criminal charges for the first time in the nation’s history. We are seeing a lot of reaction out there from various people, some celebrating • and some calling this the end of the country. Both ends of the spectrum. And both, I think, are premature, as is typical with this sort of stuff. Now, there’s two specific criticisms that I’ve been hearing. One is I should say one is a specific criticism and one is a general complaint. The specific criticism is these charges are unfounded and it is, ah, railroading and it’s all a lie. So I’m going to have my fictitious Aunt Bertha. I don’t have an Aunt Bertha, but that’s going to be every we all have Aunt Bertha, right? She comes to the Thanksgiving table and talks about how these vaccines have microchips in them and how President Trump is a blessing from God and that trans people are mentally insane and it just makes life unpleasant for everybody. But she’s quoting scripture left and right, and she’s saying this. She’s saying Trump is being railroaded. These are Trumped up charges, forgive the term. And he is completely innocent. And what I want to do with some of these stories is just say, here’s what’s wrong with that from an actual how the law works perspective. And here’s what you can say to Aunt Bertha to shut her up. Right? So here’s what’s wrong with that the investigation is secret. The testimony that was given to the grand jury, the grand jury is in some states, you have something called a grand jury. When a prosecuting official, a district attorney, says, • • i, HM, have been given evidence by the police department or some other entity that I think constitutes criminal activity and as a public policy, I get to decide • which crimes we are going to prosecute and which ones we aren’t. Like, I’m going to focus more of my resources today, this week, this month, this year, prosecuting drug charges than I am going to worry about speeding tickets. Right. I’m going to imbalance my resources because I think that the drug issue is more important than speeding, even though speeding, if it goes unchecked, will result in more deaths. So there’s important decisions that those district attorneys make and so they decide, okay, this is a crime. This evidence I have seems to support the idea that a crime was committed, one or more crimes. So I need to indict somebody. Indicting is just the formal entry of charges. That’s the start of the prosecution process where you list • • on this day at this time, person X did these things and that constitutes a crime under Section XYZ of our state statute, our state code. So in some states they just do that. In other states, they have to go through sort of a bit of a puppet show called the Grand Jury. Now, the grand jury, the motivation for a grand jury is very noble and, uh, the idea is, well, we’re giving this district attorney a lot of power as to who to prosecute. And just bringing charges against somebody is pretty heavy. Like, if you hear that somebody’s been charged with child pornography, you are forever going to think differently of them. Right. Who was it that was charged with the Olympic bombing in the US? Ruby, I think, was his last name. Hi, this is editing cross. Examiner just wanted to correct that. It’s not ruby. It was Richard Jewel. • • • • • He was investigated. It came out that he was a suspect. Turns out totally innocent. But forever and ever and ever, his name was tied to the Olympic bombing in the United States. And that is the example of what we want to avoid. We don’t want to charge unless we’ve got some pretty good evidence. So the idea behind the grand jury is it’s a check on the power of the district attorney that they have to review the evidence and they have to approve the evidence before the indictment is entered. So they are the ones who indict, actually. Well, over time, that has turned into a rubber stamp. And there’s a saying in the legal profession, uh, • • excuse me, that • • any competent district attorney could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. So ham sandwich is sort of the shorthand turn. Oh, another ham sandwich. So the question is, is Trump a ham sandwich right. Did somehow the district attorney trick the grand jury or just lead them by only presenting some evidence which he’s control of all the evidence that gets presented? There is no opposing counsel. Remember, this is an investigation. You have no idea what they’re doing. This is all done in secret because we are investigating possible criminal activity. So he controls the whole show. So it’s possible this is all made up and that he somehow used some trickery to convince the grand jury to go along with it. And it’s very easy to do so. So that’s a possibility. It’s unlikely, given the prosecution success rates that come out of grand juries. But this is a special case. This is Donald Trump. So it is entirely possible that Donald Trump is being railroaded, and that when we see the evidence, it’s going to be a big, fat nothing burger and that we go home. Right, but we don’t know that. And what’s the likelihood that a career prosecutor in Manhattan, like big name position, these type of people go on and become governors of New York and possibly presidents of the United States? What are the odds that that person is going to risk his career, his name, possibly his profession, on a politically motivated nothing, uh, • burger attack that will be thrown out of court? The odds are pretty low. The odds are very low that that’s going to be the case. So that’s sort of the first point. The next point is, even if we say we don’t know, • • the only way to tell whether it’s a nothing burger is to look at the evidence that was presented to the grand jury and to read the indictments themselves, • • both of which are under seal. You are not allowed to look at them. So that’s my first response to Aunt Bertha. When Aunt Bertha starts mouthing off about Trump getting railroaded and this is all made up by the Dems. That’s your first question. Oh, have you read the indictments? You can’t have because they’re under seal. Have you listened to the testimony that was presented over weeks and months to the grand jury? What is your legal opinion about that testimony? Oh, that’s right. You can’t form one because you haven’t heard it, because nobody has. • • So you need to stop saying that these charges are made up until we actually hear the evidence. That’s your response to Aunt Bertha on that specific complaint. Then there’s the general complaint of this is without saying that the charges are fake, then they shift to more of a this is Communism. This is horrible. We don’t do this to our presidents. In fact, here is Donald Trump Jr. Doing that exact thing, apparently • • • sorost back.

Speaker D

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg • is actually indicting my father.

Speaker E

So let’s be clear, folks.

Speaker D

This is, • • • • • like, communist level. • • This is stuff that would make Mao, • • • Stalin, • • • uh, pole Pot. • •

Speaker A

It would make them blush. This soros backed • DA is coming after my dad in a way that would make all of these dictators who murdered millions blush. • • • Nothing of substance in there, right? Nothing denying the actual • • • • legitimacy of the prosecution. It’s just • • this is all political. And so that is a vague thing designed to get the base stirred up. And if Aunt Berth is ranting about that, then your response is, are you saying that he should be immune from prosecution? Let’s say we have a videotape of him shooting somebody in the middle of 6th Avenue, like he fantasizes about in cold blooded murder. Should he be prosecuted? That’s the test. Like, okay, uh, Eyewitness News live on TV. He murders people. Should he be prosecuted? If they say yes, which I hope they do, but some people may not, • • • then you can say, okay, so if he committed these crimes, should he be prosecuted? Because this is not just one little thing. He’s been indicted on 30 over 30 counts of fraud, • • things that people go to prison for felonies right. So should he be prosecuted for this? And that’s where you get, well, • • • • • if they’re reasonable, they might say, well, I don’t know, because • • Butter emails, Hillary stuff and they don’t do it to the Dems and all that. And I think that’s not true. • • I think that anything but. The President of the United States, as, um, some commentators put it last night on TV, • prosecuting • • public officials for corruption and fraud and things like that, is almost a national pastime. We do it at every level because we want prosecution looming for anybody who’s going to not act correctly in office as a disincentive to misbehaving, as a disincentive to taking bribes. Fox News last night had Rod Blagovich on, if you remember this person. He was the governor of, • • I don’t remember, • • michigan, maybe. • • Hey, this is editing Cross examiner. It was Illinois. Uh, of course, Chicago. Corruption. Their senator in Congress died. Maybe. Uh, basically the seat opened up and he had the power to appoint a new temporary senator. And he understood that, wow, that’s a powerful position, because then you become the incumbent, your face gets necrotized. You could be senator for a long time if I appoint you. And he’s caught on tape saying, this thing I have, this appointment is golden, and I’m not going to give this up for nothing. And he’s, based on that and other testimony, convicted of • • bribery, • basically selling this appointment to the highest bidder, and he goes to prison. And who pardons him? Trump, I think it was a pardon or a commutation or something. Trump gets him out. So Fox has him on last night saying the same thing. This is just a political hack job. It is not. We do it all the time. We • • regularly prosecute mayors and Das and CFOs. Every month there’s going to be some story about a local guy or a state guy getting prosecuted. We only don’t do it to United States presidents while they are in office. That’s it. And that’s because there’s some, • • • • • um people may say outdated rules, but I think there’s some legitimacy to it, to say we don’t want political harassment to happen while they are in office. And yes, you could have a prosecutor who could just tie up the president every month by charging him with a new crime every month, and then he couldn’t get his job done. So we want that not to be a problem. As soon as the president leaves office, though, now you can bring charges. • • • • So I don’t think that argument stands water. We prosecute every other politician for the crimes that they commit. • • Why not ex presidents? If they say, oh, well, we should, then okay, then we’re fine. Then you agree we should prosecute Trump. If they say no, Trump is different somehow. Or no, we shouldn’t prosecute these important federal, politically based • • prosecutions. • • Then you ask them, well, why were you chanting Lock her up? Why were you in favor of imprisoning Hillary Clinton before an indictment’s even issued? Right before an indictment is even issued, you were chanting, Lock her up, and President Trump agreed with you. Here he is talking about Hillary Clinton to a crowd, who then starts chanting Locker up. And he says, Yep, I agree with you, Crooked Hillary. • • • • • Now they’re the ones. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker D

Yeah, • • • • I agree with you. I used to just be quieter. I agree with you 100%. • • • •

Speaker A

So even Trump agrees that federal officials should be locked up without indictments, apparently. And here we have an indictment that you haven’t seen yet, and you’re still calling it a railroaded type of situation. Uh, • • • • so this is just one example of the type of thing that we’re talking about, where you get inconsistent answers. You get Trump criticizing being prosecuted for crimes he allegedly committed when he’s saying this sort of thing about Hillary. And it’s not the only time, of course. If you Google, Where are all of the arrests Trump, you’ll find articles from 2020, September 23, where Trump said, after being asked about his political opponents, Obama and Hillary, quote, Where are all the arrests? Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful. So • • this is just hypocrisy, right? Where I think that there’s crimes we should immediately arrest, where other people think there are crimes we should not do anything. • • There’s an indictment in those cases, but still, it’s all fake. But even if there’s not an indictment, we shouldn’t even investigate. • • So that’s article number one from today. We couldn’t avoid talking about that. And again, it comes from a point of believing things based on insufficient evidence. You believe that Trump is innocent despite the evidence that’s in front of you. I’m not saying you should believe he’s guilty, but you shouldn’t say, I find him innocent before you actually see the evidence. That’s just a logical fallacy. Next, we have another Trump related issue, • • • and that is. Uh, you may have heard Disney pulled a fast one on Ron DeSantis this week. There’s an interesting legal point there. It’s not directly related to my point of why we do what we do, why we fight, why we undertake this, uh, activism. But it’s so delicious I had to bring it up. Ronda Santis has been threatening Disney with punishment. I’m going to tax the hell out of you. I’m going to destroy you. And he’s doing this because Disney won’t be mean to the people that Ronda Santis wants him to be mean to. • • Ron DeSantis hates trans people. I don’t know if he actually hates trans people, but his religious voters hate trans people. So he wants • • everybody to hate trans people. And he wants Disney to hate trans people. He wants Disney to hate anybody in the queer community. • • • And Disney refused to do so. So he’s going to punish them. They came out as publicly opposing what he wanted to do. Disney property is run by a board. It’s, uh, a board that the governor appoints members to to control the property, the land that Disney sits on. It’s sort of a special grant, a special zone. And it’s run by this board called the RCID, which stands for Reedy Creek Improvement District. RCID. Reedy Creek Improvement District was going to get some new board members. • • So DeSantis gets to appoint new board members. They’re going to take control this month. And that’s the board members he’s appointing to screw Disney, to start taxing them to stop collecting their trash, whatever they want to do to punish Disney for not being mean to people in the LGBTQ community. • • • • So, um, they take office and then they start trying to do things. And then they notice that, hey, right before the old board left office, they passed a whole bunch of new rules that strip us of our power. • • • • • And • • • they can’t do anything except pave the roads, fix potholes, and collect the trash. That’s pretty much what they’re limited to. And every other decision about that district is now by rule of the board, in the hands of Disney. Disney gets to decide everything. • • • They did this through • • • • a document called Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Restrictive covenants are restrictions on what you can do, usually in association with real estate. So you may have heard of covenants that run with the land. Restrictive covenants. Your homeowners association has kind of create some restrictive covenants. I am not a property attorney. Property was my worst class in law school. As is common with many law school students, you have to be a special type of person to get into property because it is the most arcane, the most obscure, the most ancient law that you regularly have to deal with. Maybe maritime law can compete. But, um, when you think of ancient, obscure, thick, dense law, property takes the cake. So, um, they passed a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants where they said for all of this property. We can’t do anything anymore. It’s all in the hands of Disney. That’s fun and fun to laugh at. One can ask, is that a good idea? Should we have corporations starting to self dictate and all that? I think it’s a great conversation. But this is swampland in Florida and it is a gotcha in the eye of DeSantis. So I think it’s fun to just enjoy it • • • • while it’s happening. But the thing I wanted to point out was, and this is what’s hitting all the headlines, is there’s this clause about King Charles III, the King of England, in this restrictive covenant. And everybody’s like, what is that about? And I wanted to explain that. So there’s this idea in property law called the rule against perpetuities. I’m sorry, I should have issued a trigger warning to any lawyers who are listening. I’m going to mention the rule of Rule against Perpetuities. • • • • It is • • • • • one of the most obscure, dense, weird laws you have to study in property law and law school to boil it down. There’s a long history of what’s going on here. But in the 16 hundreds, it came to a head that lords and barons and whatnot in England were trying to control what happened to their land after they died, basically in perpetuity. That’s where this law against perpetuities comes, uh, from this rule. And they wanted to say, okay, well, when I die, son A gets the good stuff, son B gets the okay stuff, and son C gets nothing. But if son A dies, then son B gets all of A’s property, but he has to give all of B’s property to son C. So this actually happened. This is a real example. And then • • • • • • son A does die, and this is I forget the name, the Baron of Album or something like that, he dies. Son A gets stuff, and son B gets stuff. And then son A dies. And now son B is supposed to give his stuff to son C and take son A stuff. But son B says no. I’m going to keep both. I’m going to keep A and I’m going to keep B, and I’m going to give nothing to Sun C. SUNSEE Sues goes to the House of Lords. Back then, • uh, this is about 400 years of common law has been established. So they’re very good at this point of sort of thinking, what should the public policy be like? This is a new lawsuit. Um, I don’t know if it was inequity or not. It’s basically saying it’s not fair. I don’t know if it’s like a breach of a contract or something. But they basically are coming to the House of Lords and saying, you should enforce this guy’s rule that says he can control • • what happens with his land at Infinitum. Right? He could say, once Sunsea dies, then this happens, and once that happens, then whoever the next greatest heir is, and he could. Create a will that just creates a rule forever as to who keeps this property, to try to keep it in his family. And the House of Lord says, no, that’s not good public policy. We don’t want to live in a world where an individual can control what happens to a piece of property 1000 years after they’ve died. We want each successive owner to have an opportunity • • to change its use, to change its ownership, to sell it, to split it up, to do whatever right. • • It’s not a good idea for a person 1000 years ago to decide what we should be doing with our land today. So they came up with a rule that says you can’t control land forever. And that is the rule against perpetuities. And the way the rule works is this is a common law rule. And common law we can talk about in another episode. But the common law that was developed ever since the days of or just before the Magna Carta to now, so 800 years • • • or more of judge made law, common sense law • • that evolved over time into everything we do now, all of our torts, all of our rules of evidence, all of that, everything comes from common law. And it’s adopted by the Constitution. So we still follow it in the US. Anywhere where the jurisdiction does not have a statute that controls this particular behavior. If there is common law that covers it, it’s likely that that common law still applies. You may have heard of common law marriages, you may have heard torts, all of these things. A lot of those have been converted into statutes, but some may not have been. Well, here the rule against perpetuities is • • • • • • • • • • • • • you can never control what happens to the land beyond • • 21 years following the death of any person that was living at the time you made your declaration. That’s sort of how I understand it. Basically, it’s called current life plus 21 years. All you know as an attorney that passed the par is the rule against perpetuity is current life plus 21 years. That’s all you need to remember. If you have any questions, you need to go hire a property attorney. But what that means is you have to pick somebody as an heir or some measure yardstick as a yardstick, and say, okay, when that person dies, and it doesn’t have to be a specific person, and that’s important in the Disney case. When that person dies 21 years after that event, then I give up control of the property. I can no longer, through my will or deed or whatever I’m trying to do, control what happens to this property. And the property is now free and clear, influenced and decided upon by whoever controls it at that point. So • • • • • this is a document that Disney well, it isn’t even Disney that passed it. The board passed this. And the board lawyer is the person on record for who wrote this. And that’s kind of important too. But here’s what this document says. This has to do with the term of the Declaration. This Declaration shall be deemed effective as of the effective date and continue to be effective in perpetuity unless all or certain portions of the provisions of this Declaration are expressly terminated as provided elsewhere herein. So, in other words, this thing, Disney gets to control this land forever, except for anywhere inside this declaration where we explicitly say they don’t control it forever. All right? And then they say provided, however, that if perpetual term of this declaration declaration. The perpetual term of this declaration is deemed to violate the rule against perpetuities or any similar law or rule, this declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration. • • So, in plain English, if some court says, hey, you can’t say that Disney controls this land forever because of the rule of perpetuity, uh, rule against perpetuities or some other purpose, then you need to find out who the last living descendant of King Charles, the current King of England is, • • and from the date that person dies. And it can only be a descendant that was alive as of the date of this Declaration. Okay? That’s what they mean by the death of the last survivor of the descendant of the King living as of the date of this declaration. So whoever that is, I didn’t research it, but some baby prince or princess somewhere is a descendant of King Charles III. When that person dies eventually, and whoever it may be, it’s not the youngest, it is when the last of them dies. So you’ve got I don’t know how many 100 or 50 or 2020 different people, let’s say, that might be in play today that were descendants of King Charles III. • • • You have to wait until the last one of those dies and then wait another 21 years, and then the board gets control back of this land. • • • So, uh, shout out to the rule against perpetuities. Shout out to the Disney lawyers who did this. The reason I said it was important that the board’s attorney was listed as the person who drafted this is there is an esoteric sort of area where during disagreements about who drafted what and ambiguities in contracts, sometimes you can say, well, as a judge you might say, let’s say you got into a contract with Verizon and there’s this disparity in power. Right? Like, you the little consumer, and Verizon, who has a team of lawyers, you’re entering to an agreement that Verizon drafted. So where there are • • m ambiguities, where there’s uncertainty, maybe I hedge my judgment towards the little guy because he didn’t draft the agreement. The first person to draft it was Verizon. And while you had an opportunity, little guy, to submit changes, he who drafts first has a huge advantage. So I’m going to recognize that and maybe, • • um, not shift entirely, but take that into account. So even that is being covered by Disney’s attorneys, by having the board attorney listed as the person who drafted this. So that, I mean, well played, Disney attorneys. We can have a whole discussion about whether we want to do this or not later. But actually, let’s have it now. This is exactly the same thing. Now. People are complaining, the DeSantis people are shocked and stunned and pearl clutching that Disney would even consider doing such a tricky thing. And they first were complaining that they weren’t notified. But you know what? They were. I’ve got the entire package, • 400 and something. Pages, 447 pages of all of the documents and minutes from the meeting are available on their website. And the very first thing after the table of contents is the notice that they posted in the Orlando Sentinel of the meeting. As required by law, you are supposed to post notice here. I also read somewhere that they were also supposed to post it in a database of meetings, which they also did. So they put notice where they were supposed to do so by law. And the DeSantis people just didn’t notice. They just didn’t notice the notice. So they didn’t attend. They weren’t aware of what was going on. And Disney just got a unanimous approval of this declaration. So should DeSantis people complain? Generally? Yeah, probably. • • Uh, it’s not great to have a corporation controlling this land. On the other hand, like I said, it’s land in the middle of a swamp if you’ve ever been there. • • • It’s not like the state is going to take over and run Disneyland. • If they want to run Disney out of Florida, so be it. Disney will demolish everything. • • And the state is not going to rebuild a Disneyland that has • • • one iota of influence and economic impact the way that Disney does. • • Disney would leave and come up here to Maryland where I am, or somewhere else where that’s a little more central, uh, maybe not as hot all the time and build a whole new park. They could do that. It’s not like Disney’s going to excuse, uh, • me, Florida is going to take over. So it’s not as big of an impact as other examples. But let’s take a look at these other examples. We have state legislatures and local legislatures where GOP is leading. And then they get voted out. And they know that the Democrats are going to come in and take over. What do they do? They pass a bunch of rules, make it harder to pass laws. Right before they leave, they come in and say, okay, now you need a supermajority to pass these sorts of regulations or statutes. You need these sorts of procedures that slow things down in order to get anything done. And they make it harder for the Dems to do their job. So they put in this poison pill and they destroy their own power the same way that the RCID did. So at a minimum, they’re in no point to criticize this, because that’s people doing this to actual government. That is people poisoning democracy because they don’t want the will of the people to be followed. So if you’re the state legislature of North Carolina, and the GOP loses power, and you vote to make it impossible for the Dems to do anything, for anybody in power to get anything done just before you’re walking out the door, • • that’s devastating to democracy. That’s the worst cynical • gamesmanship available. But that’s what’s happening with the GOP. So if Aunt Bertha complains about Disney first, you can tell her about the rule of perpetuities, and maybe she’ll fall asleep and you can escape. And if she doesn’t, you can talk to her about the GOP tactics in a much more important environment rather than other compared to the regulation of swamp land in Florida. All right, our next topic on the list, and thank you for sticking with me. This is, like I said, an experiment into sort of free form news of the day. Oh, this is a horrible story. I’m sorry to have to bring this to you. This was reported on ABC News and other places years ago, but it came up again, • • and this was 2012. This happened in, uh, New York. But when I was doing my research, I found this article, and the headline is baby dies of Herpes in Ritual Circumcision by Orthodox Jews. • So, March 12, 2012, a baby contracted herpes after a, quote, ritual circumcision with oral suction, which in ultra Orthodox Jewish ceremonies is something that they follow that you will do a circumcision. The bris and the MOIL who does this removes the foreskin from the penis, and then with his mouth, will suck the blood from the incision to cleanse them at wound. Okay, it’s that weird. And two weeks after this baby was born, he died due to this herpes, uh, infection because of this ritual. So this is something I ran across during my investigation into a current story that I’m going to be doing as my next full episode that investigates how many children are dying due to faith healing, exceptions to our, uh, criminal law around the country. But it’s been happening all along. It’s not just Idaho. It’s not just Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Church of Christ or i, uh, forget what they call themselves now. It’s everywhere. And this is just horrific. I can’t think of a better example for why do you people care than this? This is why I care. The reason they’re doing this circumcision at all, much less putting a mouth on a circle on an incision into a penis on an infant who has no immunities built up. • • The only reason they’re doing this is because of their religion. This is why we care. So I’m going to move past it because it’s just going to get me pissed off. So let’s talk about another thing that might get me upset. Um, the Hill reported, many people reported that Tennessee Representative Tim Birchett, a Republican, said that there’s no way to fix gun violence after a, ah, shooter killed three kids and three adults at an elementary school in his state, in his home state. He got on, uh, the air and said, let me read the quote. Quote, it’s a horrible, horrible situation, Birchett told reporters, and we’re not going to fix it. Criminals are going to be criminals. Now, to be fair, I think he means we can’t fix it. Again, words matter. We’re not going to fix it can also mean we can’t. We’re not going to because it’s impossible, I think, is what he means. Birchett says he doesn’t see any, quote, real role, quote, for Congress to play in reducing gun violence other than to, quote, mess things up. Here he is explaining why there’s no real role for Congress in trying to fix gun violence. Here’s what he said legislate evil.

Speaker E

It’s just not going to happen. We’ve got evil in this country. And • • everybody just needs to tone down the rhetoric a little bit, because all that does is gin it up in both sides and then they point the finger and nothing happens. Because if you think Washington is going to fix this problem, you’re wrong. They’re not going to fix this problem. They are the problem.

Speaker A

It doesn’t concern you that other countries.

Speaker D

Don’T have this level of gun.

Speaker E

Other countries don’t have our freedom either. • •

Speaker A

So our freedom is worth dead kids? • • • Our freedom to own assault rifles, weapons that the Founding Fathers couldn’t even imagine is worth. How many have we had so far? 150. School shootings? Not school shootings, mass shootings this year alone, thousands. Uh, in the last ten years. There’s been over 3000 in the last ten years. And that’s worth it so that you guys can get your rocks off owning a bunch of guns that can kill a bunch of people really fast. So I disagree with the premise that other countries don’t have our freedom. That is a common trope that the GOP pulls out. They don’t have the freedom necessarily to go out and buy guns at a gun show free from government inspection. They don’t have the freedom to not have, uh, to buy insurance and not be criminally prosecuted if they don’t keep their guns safe and all those sorts of things. I agree with you that they don’t have those freedoms, but the argument is that they shouldn’t have. And it’s a fallacy to say that taking away those freedoms to save lives • • • is a blanket bad thing, because you are taking away freedom. We take away freedom all the time. I am not free to go 90 miles an hour on the highway. I’m just not, I am not free to punch you in the face. I am not free to keep 1000 cattle right next to your property and let those runoff flow into your land. I’m not free to do a massive amount of things that we have determined are detrimental to each other. So this, hey, there’s evil in the world, we’re not going to do anything about it because what can you do? G shucks congress sucks. And then when you’re said, well, wait a second, this problem doesn’t exist in other countries to fall back on they don’t have our freedom is a load of crap. It’s a load of crap and it’s misleading. It doesn’t address the issue. • • He was confronted about this and asked to clarify what he meant about congress is not going to fix it. And then he falls back on again. Religion will fix it. Here he is explaining that we need repentance and we need revival.

Speaker B

Why is it making people mad? • • • • •

Speaker E

I think, uh, • • they come back to me and say, birchet, • • look what your prayers have done for us. And the people doing the praying aren’t the ones doing the shooting.

Speaker A

Man am I hearing that right? • • So who is doing the shootings? And why don’t we know whether or not they’re Christian? I believe of the thousands of mass shootings we’ve had in the last ten years, • • here’s the stats that I’m aware of. 97.7% were male, • • 52% were white. The next highest is black at 20%. • • Overwhelmingly white male, overwhelmingly Christian communities, • • overwhelmingly Christian people. Okay, • • incoming. No true Scotsman fallacy right? We’re going to hear, well, if they did mass shootings, then they weren’t true Christians. Well, that’s not what he said. He said the people doing the praying are not the ones doing the shooting. And that’s just demonstrably not true. • • • • So this is a shorthand, this is a bumper sticker logic that says if you’re Christian, you are by definition a good person. This is what he’s saying by saying this. And that is demonstrably not true. All data on prisons show the following the vast majority of population in prison is religious. In fact, if the atheist group, uh, is about ten to 20% of the population, depending on how you ask the question, you get different answers. The atheist population in prison is like down in the single digits, 3%, something like that. So Christians are overrepresented in prison. Now. Again, as the saying goes, ah, • • • • 100% of people who confuse correlation with causation end up dying. • • Right? Um, we can’t say that which way the direction error goes. Maybe because you go to prison, you become religious to either protect yourself or whatever. That’s entirely possible. But we have no data that shows it going the other way. We do have data showing Christian violence, religiously motivated violence around the world, around the country. So it’s just not true what he says there. But he goes on, I mean it’s.

Speaker E

It’S just a very unfortunate situation and, and, um, I don’t there’s no easy answers. Um, I don’t know, • • • • repenting of your sins, um, • • • and having some sort of, um, reform in this country seems to me be the way we’re going to have to turn this thing around because we have some very sick, evil people doing some very vile things. • • • Um, and revival seems to be the way to go for me, but I realize, um, their hatred towards me and my beliefs and that’s fine. • •

Speaker A

Wow. I mean, you can hear him shift answers three or four times there. It starts off with, • • gee, shucks, Congress sucks. • • • • • It’s really hard having to deal with these issues. And then he stumbles around. Um, and, uh, then he goes to, oh, • I need to give a religious answer. It seems like religion, prayer and revival and salvation and admitting m your sins is the way. And then he realizes, well, that’s not a good solution. • That’s not going to sit well with everybody I represent. And then he ends up on, well, Christian persecution. I know people are going to hate me for that. • • So, uh, • • • that’s okay. It’s a non answer. Let’s listen to it one more time.

Speaker E

I mean, it’s, it’s just a very unfortunate situation and, and I m don’t there’s no easy answers. Um I don’t know. • • • • Repenting of your sins and, um, • • • • having some sort of, um, reform in this country seems to me be the way we’re going to have to turn this thing around because we have some very sick, evil people doing some very vile things. • • • Um, and revival seems to be the way to go for me, but I realize, um, their hatred towards me and my beliefs and that’s fine.

Speaker A

So he doesn’t have an answer is what he means. • • This is all just gibberish. This is all saying, I don’t know, it’s really tough. I hate the fact that you asked me why all the other developed countries who also have freedom don’t have the gun anywhere near the • • deaths per capita due to guns that we do. So I’m going to fall back on we need prayer, we need reforms, we need a reformation, we need revival, we need religion to fix the problem. • • • What are you talking about? • • We’re 70 something percent Christian. The vast majority of elected officials are Christian. We open every legislative session with a prayer. We are a Christian nation as far as who controls things in this country. • • • This whole we are a persecuted group. Like, oh, I know people hate me for, um, beliefs, and that’s okay. • • • I don’t hate you at all. I want you to fix the problem and I want you to stop thinking that skydaddy is going to fix it for you. Do your job, • • study the issue. What do other communities around the world do to fix this issue? And can we do it here? What would it take? It would likely take, given what the Supreme Court has done, • • it would likely take a constitutional amendment we need to amend the First Amendment to define what arms mean, right? We have a right to bear arms. If we are part of a well regulated m militia, we sort of leave that part out. A, uh, well regulated militia being necessary for the safety of blah, blah, blah. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay, so it’s the context of right of a militia, right? No, they don’t want to listen to that part of the Constitution. So we need to amend the Constitution to redo this whole thing. And this is what would purportedly, if you listen to these Christian fundamentalist gun nuts that would cause a civil war, they come, take this gun out of my cold, dead hands. Other countries, • • when they have had these situations, have fixed the problem. Australia had a massive shooting decades ago. Massive. It bothered the nation so much that the leaders in Parliament, the prime minister, told his people, I’m going to lose my job over this, but we are going to get rid of guns in this country. And by God, he did it. They banned guns. They had a massive mandatory gun turn in. They bought them back. They destroyed them. They got rid of guns. And they haven’t had a major mass shooting like that since. Or if they’ve had, they may have had one. We’ve had 3000 mass shootings in the last ten years, 300 or so per year. They’ve had maybe one, maybe zero, since they had the political will to fix the goddamn problem. • • And this guy lost his job. He was right. I am going to spend my political capital I was sent here to do something for these people, and I fixed the problem, even though I got voted out of office because it was unpopular. But that law is still in effect. • • • And they like it. Some of them don’t want to say it, but they don’t have to worry about their kids dying when they go to school like I do. Like you do, like everybody does now. And here we have a, uh, representative from Tennessee whose constituents died from an AR 15 ripping their bodies apart. And here he is saying, I don’t know, it’s kind of gee. Shucks it’s kind of a tough problem. I don’t think there’s anything we can do. I think we need to pray. And I know people are going to hate me for saying I need to pray, but we need to pray. That’s his answer. What the fuck? • Who are these people? What do they think the job is? I know what they think the job is. They think the job is get money, get fame, get power, enjoy. That’s the job for them. And if they have to lie, cheat, or steal to do it, they will. I don’t think this guy’s lying. I think he’s genuine in his beliefs, but his g shucks, what can we do attitude and oh, they don’t have freedoms bumper sticker attitude towards suggestions that we change anything is ridiculous. And the fact that he falls back on the Bible to convince his voters that they should agree with him is why we continue to fight about God. If he wasn’t doing that, I wouldn’t have to make this post. Other stories in the news this week. This is just from the last couple of days, right? Lauren Bobert? So let’s talk about Lauren Bobert for a second. • • What’s the difference between • • Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Bobert? And I heard somebody talking about this online the other day, and I think this is worth repeating. Marjorie Taylor Green • • is cruel • • and vicious • • • and thoughtless, • • • • • • and she does that very well. • • • • Lauren Bobert wants to be • • • smart, • • she wants to be AOC, • • • but she can’t. • • So basically, • • Lauren Bobert keeps swinging for the fences and keeps trying to hit these home runs with her points and fails miserably. Whereas Marjorie Taylor Green, there’s no expectation. She’s not trying. The point is, I’m here to be cruel. I’m here to be mean to people. I’m here to mock the trans community. She tweeted out right after the Tennessee shooting, said, um, the shooter was a trans person. • • • • Stop saying we need gun reform. • • Trans people are attacking America. • I think out of the last 3000 shootings we’ve had, the number I saw being cited was between three to five of those shooters were trans people. • • • • Let’s say it was 30. Let’s say it was 30. • • • 30 out of 3000. And she’s here saying the problem is trans people. Obviously, this is disgusting. So Bobert. She’s different, though. She wants to make these points. She’s filing articles of impeachment against Biden. And when she did so, she got in front of supporters and said, as the Bible say, says, let his days be few, and let another take his office. That’s a line that the GOP likes to use sometimes. And she said that again, quoting the Bible. As to why what she wants to have happen to Biden. What she didn’t say is the very next line in that verse. That’s Psalm 109, verse eight, verse nine continues. So it starts, let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. So she’s • • • • • quoting from a passage where on one line she’s saying one thing, and if she had read what is that? Ten more words, it would have been like, I want Joe Biden to die. That’s the verse that she’s citing. I don’t think she meant that. I think she’s just dumb. • • • • She’s a moron. She got her GED • • after dropping out of high school, not after she got her dropped out. She dropped out of high school because she got knocked up by her sex offender boyfriend, right. Who, when he was a grown man, later exposed his penis to, uh, underage girls at a bowling alley. That’s the man she married. But she got knocked up and had a kid when she was 16. A few months before she gets elected to Congress, she went and got her GED. And she wants to be AOC. • • She wants to be seen as smart as a person who can got you and take you on and debate. And if you watch her, she just falls on her face constantly because she’s not AOC. • • AOC graduated from a university with honors. Right. She’s a smart person. • • Bobert, not so much. So • • • • she was being questioned this week about her son. • • Bobert in the past has said we shouldn’t have sex education in school and in the same breath announced that her son, her 16 year old son, had knocked up his girlfriend. The cycle continues. So on one hand she’s saying we don’t need sex education, and on the other hand, my son, who could have used some sex education, got to go pregnant, is now of course they’re going to have the baby. And he now is changing his life plans. He’s not going to go to university anymore. He’s going to go to community college and he’s going to be a father and all that sort of stuff. I’m not criticizing him. I’m just saying he would have had more choices if maybe somebody told him how to wrap it up. So being asked about this, she’s quoting the Bible again. She’s quoting the Bible as to why we should be forgiving of people who make mistakes and how we should try to educate people. Let me see if I have this quote.

Speaker B

So, I mean, obviously I’m a Christian and there are standards that we like to uphold, but none of us do it perfectly. Um, one of the biggest things that I look to is him who knows to do right and doesn’t it’s sin. And I mean, there’s things all throughout the week that I know is right to do and sometimes • • • I don’t do them. • • Um, • • • we can nitpick what the Bible says is right and wrong. But I think just having, • um, • • that heart posture of wanting to serve God and do the right thing is so important. And, um, • • • would I chose a different path? Of course. But, um, • • this is where we’re at.

Speaker A

I see. So now that we’re talking to you about your son and his pregnancy and the reality that has come crashing down upon you, then bringing up the Bible is • • we can nitpick right. We’re going to quote the Bible left and right when we’re impeaching Joe Biden, or when we’re arguing about the border, or we’re talking about trans people. But when it comes to your family and your son, it would be nitpicking to even bring it up. I get it. Do we see the hypocrisy of these people? It reminds me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Lancelot has slaughtered an entire wedding party and people are pissed off about it. But the owner of the castle. In which this happened, has just learned that Lancelot is very influential and has a lot of power. And the owner goes to the people who have been who survived the slaughter and says, let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who, • • right? • • • • • • • • I know Bobert says I’ve used the Bible in every argument I make, but asking me to actually reflect on what the Bible says would be nitpicking. So, • • continuing with the Lauren Bobert, this is not necessarily a religious piece on her, but I, I had to bring this up to sort of close off the show. I think I have this. And one more. Let’s talk about the other one. This is just one little headline I wanted to read before we go back to the Fun Bobert thing. And that is Missouri voted to completely defund the state public libraries. The new budget sets the funds to libraries to $0. • • • This was Tuesday night. This was at, uh, the 28th, March 28, because why? People were complaining that the GOP was banning books. People got pissed off that the GOP wanted to take books out of libraries that had ideas in them that they didn’t agree with. And they got so much pressure on that issue, they said, fine, nobody gets any books. If we can’t ban the books we don’t like, then nobody gets any books. So that’s going on in Missouri, again, religiously motivated a, uh, hatred of people who are different from you to the point that you don’t want even to acknowledge they exist. And you’re willing to cripple your state, cripple the citizens of your state who rely on that library by funding it to $0. Now, let’s get back to the last bit about Bobert. I mentioned to you that she wants to be an AOC, she wants to be an intellectual. I just have to finish with this. So she’s, uh, attending a hearing. • • Uh, you may have heard that DC passed the DC council. The ruling body, the legislative body, decided to pass a new set of criminal code that hasn’t been updated for 100 years. And Congress overruled that them and said, no, we don’t agree that this is a good idea. And Biden actually agreed with that and signed with it. We can talk about the merits of that. I think it was probably a bad idea. I think it does go against Democratic principles. I think Biden made a mistake. But I think politically, what he is doing is saying, I don’t want to fight this fight. It’s a tough call. I think he should have just said, no, I’m not going to let you override the will of the people of the District of Columbia. That said, Bobert is here talking to the council, uh, • • Member Allen, who I believe was the chair of the committee that came up with the revised criminal code that was proposed and overturned. And she is questioning him about his role in supposedly changing the public urination laws in DC. So I want to just listen to her. And what you’re going to hear is her talking to him in committee, and she’s going to assert a bunch of things that just aren’t true. She’s, like, utterly incompetent. Here, let’s listen.

Speaker B

Mr. Allen, • • • based on these statistics, • • • I would like to talk to you, um, about some other things that are going on here in Washington, DC. Specifically, an initiative that you led in November of 2022, you led the charge to reform DC’s crime laws, is that correct? • • • •

Speaker D

I chaired the committee. That, ah, that proposal came.

Speaker B

You led this charge? Yes, sir. And, uh, • • • • these changes • • are now law here in DC. Correct? • • •

Speaker D

Do you mean? The revised Criminal Code. Yes. Uh, no, those are not the law.

Speaker B

Those are not the law. • • • • • • • • •

Speaker D

Revised code was, uh, rejected by excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker B

I’ll talk to Mr. Allen. • •

Speaker A

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I’m getting owned by the witness. I don’t want to get owned by you at the same time. Right. • • • • • • • • • How embarrassing. How absolutely awful for Lauren Bobert. She’s coming in with this great big gotcha you wanted to presumably go soft on crime, right? And he’s like, uh, no, I was the chairman. Yeah. And, uh, the stuff that came out, that’s not the law right now. And you can hear her • • • • repeats the question. • • • Uh, and he starts explaining and the chairman of her committee starts explaining that you, Lauren Bobert, voted against the law. You are now attacking and thinking is actual, real law. You actually caused it not to be law, and you seem to have forgotten that. So let’s continue. • • •

Speaker B

Mr. Allen, did you or did you not decriminalize public urination in Washington, DC. Did you lead the charge to do so?

Speaker D

No. The revised Criminal Code left that as a criminal charge.

Speaker B

Did you lead the charge to decriminalize public urination in Washington, DC.

Speaker D

No, ma’am.

Speaker B

Did you ever vote in favor of decriminalizing public urination in Washington, DC.

Speaker D

The revised Criminal Code that was • • • support kept it as a criminal offense. • • • • •

Speaker B

And you support this criminal?

Speaker D

I voted for it, yeah.

Speaker B

You voted to keep it as a criminal offense?

Speaker D

That’s correct. The full counsel did.

Speaker B

We have records that show that you were in favor • • • of, uh, removing that criminal offense and allowing public urination?

Speaker D

No.

Speaker B

Is that something that you intend to pursue in the future?

Speaker D

No. The legislation you’re referring to that came from the Criminal Code Reform Commission, changed public urination from a criminal to a civil offense. The Council then changed that to maintain it as a criminal offense at the request of the mayor.

Speaker B

Thank you, i, um, yield. •

Speaker A

Thank you, I yield. Uh, I have been owned thoroughly. I don’t know if you picked up on this, but she is trying, through her questioning, to set up a sound bite that she can put on her website. This is how she thinks. • • Were you the one who led the charge for the decriminalization of urination in DC. She’s putting a pause between inch one. The volume is descending with each phrase. So she can look like this firm authoritarian on the bench, trapping somebody in some admission of guilt. Right. Were you the one • • • • • • • • • • • • • you legalized this, right? No, ma’am. • • Uh, • • it’s in the criminal code, yes. And you supported it? I voted for it. It’s like we and then she finishes with the we have records that indicate that you did the opposite. • • Is that just a lie? Maybe not. I think what she’s talking about is her staff gave her bad information. • • Her staff somebody on her staff really screwed up, and she leaned on that person, and that person gave her the utter wrong information. And she tries to pull joe, uh, McCarthy. Right. I have here a list of 53 members of the Communist Party who are blah, blah, blah, blah. Can we see the list? No. • • So she finishes, • • • • we have records that indicate that you did support it. And he explains very carefully, no, I didn’t. This is what happened. • • • Uh, the subcommittee, the other group tried to make it a, uh, civil instead of a criminal penalty. And • • • my committee, the full committee, changed it back to a criminal. Thank you, I yield. • • • Slinks away into the corner. I just had to play that as some sort of cathartic moment that this is the person who, at will, will either • • • use the Bible to get people to agree with her or call, uh, examining the Bible nitpicking when it comes to reflecting on her own life choices and those of her family. And this is the type of thing she does. But it doesn’t end here. • • • There’s one more moment in the committee where some other congressman is questioning the witness. You’re going to hear I think it’s I don’t remember who it is is questioning the witness, and she asks a question of the witness, and this is.

Speaker B

What happens then addressing a number of really serious concerns that our constituents have. Uh, they’re choosing to waste our time by meddling in the District of Columbia • • and talking about public urination over and over. Just want to make sure do you have anything additional you want to say about public urination? Now’s your time. I do. Um • um no, not you I’m talking to. It’s not your time. • • • • • It’s a question. Always do, these times.

Speaker A

Here • • • oh, my goodness. • • • • My goodness. • • • Here’s a congressman questioning the witness. • • Uh, hey, do you have anything else to say about public urination? Asking him sarcastically like, this is the problems that we need to be addressing at this level. And Lauren, Bobert, without missing a beat from the other end of, • • um, • the table, goes, oh, yeah, I do. Uh, • • no, wait, • • that was not to you. That was to the witness I am obviously talking to. And then Bobert tries to cover oh, well, uh, • I will question him after you’re done. Thank you. • • • • • • • • • This is why we are worried. • These are the people that get elected based on their faith and their faith alone rather than their qualifications. I am not slamming GEDs here. GEDs are important. I know people who have GEDs and have gone on to become, uh, millionaires. Okay? • • I am slamming the hypocrisy. I am slamming the I got pregnant, had to drop out, couldn’t get an education. And then when I decided a long time after that I wanted to run for Congress, I ran in and got a GED. And that’s my only qualification for deciding the fates of millions of Americans. • • • • • That’s not what we want. We want her best and brightest in Congress. She is not the best and brightest. She is in the bottom of the barrel. And so she falls back on • • Bible thumping all the time, but only when it suits her. So I hope, uh, you enjoyed this episode. This has been the news of the week. Why we care. Uh, whatever we’re going to call it, it’s an experiment. I may not do it again. Uh, it did go on longer than I thought it would. We’re at about an hour and eleven before I edit. But let me tease the next full episode I’m doing here’s my tease if we were going to do a commercial.

Speaker D

Uh. • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker A

Next on The • • • Cross, uh, • • examiner podcast. Did you know that you can kill your child legally in Idaho? You can only do it though, if you have a firmly held religious belief. That’s up next on the next episode of The Cross examiner. Thanks for joining me. • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker B

This has been the cross examiner podcast. The Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider subscribing. See you soon. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •