Radio Show Hour 2 – 02/17/2025

[00:00:13] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West. You are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. All right. Happy to have you along, my fellow Americans. Sam Bushman live on your radio. Hard-hitting news the network refused to use, no doubt. Continues now. This, my fellow Americans, is a very special day. This is Monday, February the 17th, in the year of our Lord, 2025.

[00:00:42] Yes, indeed, we're going to demand on the checks and balances. We, the people, are going to get involved in absolutely meaningful ways as we protect life, liberty, and property and promote God, family, and country. Today, we are celebrating Washington's birthday, ladies and gentlemen, George Washington himself. A lot of people want to call this President's Day. I'm just going to call it what I want to. Okay? It's George Washington's birthday, people. You got it? Good. Welcome, Lowell Nelson.

[00:01:13] Hi, Lowell. Hey, Sam. Welcome. It's George Washington's birthday, sir. Yes, sir. Here you're perfect. Very, very good, yes. Yeah, I'm here to celebrate George Washington's birthday today. You know, this day has been around, President's Day has been around only a few decades, but there were lots of years that we celebrated just George Washington's birthday from about 1790s to about 1970s.

[00:01:42] So, yeah, that's what it was originally. That's what it ought to be today. That's what I'm celebrating, Sam. I'm not celebrating President's Day because then I'd have to celebrate like Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter and all these other clowns through history that have literally destroyed liberty at every turn they possibly can. Well, you got that right, Sam. Yeah. All right. Before we get into the news today, I've got a dilemma, a constitutional dilemma for you. And I want to get your quick take on this.

[00:02:12] All right? Sure. Republicans seek to unleash President's power to, quote, not spend. That's right. Republican lawmakers want to repeal a Watergate era bill or law, if you will, that reigns in the President's ability to, quote, decline to spend funds appropriated by Congress.

[00:02:36] Nathan Worcester over at the EpochTimes.com, our dear friend Nathan has been on with us several times, wrote this piece. And in effect, what we have is Trump plans to use a term called impoundment to cut spending. And you say, well, what is impoundment? Known as impoundment, the practice of declining to spend funds Congress has appropriated dates back to Thomas Jefferson days. Now, I want to be very clear about this.

[00:03:05] So here's the problem. Republicans in the House and Senate want to repeal ICA. So let me explain the quick story. The president started using this term called impoundment. Then he used it so much, so aggressively, virtually weaponized this idea to the point where they created now in Congress an ICA law, which in 1974 got passed to stop the president, to restrict the president from this. The problem is both sides of these coins are unconstitutional.

[00:03:34] First off, the president should have never weaponized this power of impoundment. There isn't a power in the Constitution. However, he must faithfully execute the laws. That's where it gets exploited. What do you say? How do you deal with this kind of stuff, Lowell?

[00:03:52] Yeah, that's a question not dissimilar to the one we asked ourselves a week or two or three ago, Sam, when we were talking about all this money that's been allocated by or appropriated by Congress to be spent, right? And we asked the question, does the executive have to spend the funds appropriated by Congress?

[00:04:13] And you answered the question, I thought, thoughtfully and correctly when you said, look, if it's for constitutional purposes, then yes. Then it probably should be spent. But since 99% of what Congress appropriates is not for constitutional purposes, there's no warrant for the Constitution for 99% of what they appropriate.

[00:04:35] Then no, he's well within the Constitution to refuse to spend money on anything that does not have a warrant for it in the Constitution. So I think we addressed that question already, Sam, and I thought you were right. Well, kind of. So here's the nuance of this. I agree with you. The president cannot spend money if he says, hey, I've got to faithfully execute this, and they didn't have authority to pass that law. So he can stop the funding. But then he needs to go back to the American people.

[00:05:04] People don't think we have a role here, but we do. And he can win the court of public opinion and say, guys, Congress passed a law to fund this taxing organization known as the IRS. I find it criminal. It becomes judge, jury, and executioner. It violates all the checks and balances. I will not spend a penny on this program. I voted against it, so it's not a law now. See, the president could shut it down. But even if something does get passed, the president then later in the game, let's say a former president passed the IRS law, then the next president could say, wait a minute, it's bogus.

[00:05:33] There's no authority for them to do this. In fact, it violates everything. But he needs to appeal to the American people. The American people need to put pressure on Congress to appropriately navigate this to the will of the people. And if they don't, then they can get voted out. In the meantime, it's a battle between the president and the courts. But I say this, this idea that I'm going to faithfully execute the laws means I won't spend money if it's not a law that I should faithfully execute. Because a law that's unconstitutional is not a law.

[00:06:01] Okay, it's called pretend legislation in the Declaration of Independence. Now, what they've done, though, is they've weaponized this term called impoundment. And now it means I can just put this money aside, like impounding your car. I can just put this money aside somewhere and hold it for whatever. I don't think the president has the authority to do that. There's no constitutional authority to do that. So that's the problem that we have here. And on one hand, are you for getting rid of this ICS?

[00:06:28] On one hand, yes, because there's no authority to restrict the president here the way they've done it. But there's no authority for the president to use this impoundment either. Faithfully execute the laws of the land is the general statement, but it's been weaponized. First, thus impoundment, thus the restriction on impoundment. They're going – now what we're doing is debating things that aren't even in the Constitution. Lol. Mm-hmm.

[00:06:51] So what is the difference between impoundment and what you and I described a couple weeks ago as not spending the money on an unconstitutional law? Well, that's the debate. See, that's where ICA comes in, this other law to try to restrict the president and say you have to spend the money. Neither are right. When you say impoundment, though, does the president have the right to put the money in a separate kitty? Or does he just have the right to challenge the law? See, that's what the debate is here.

[00:07:21] No, I see.

[00:07:50] Yeah. So I don't agree that impoundment is the right thing to do. You can't just take the money and set it aside in some account and, you know, I mean, you just leave it with the Treasury, Sam. That's what you do. You just simply say I'm not going to impound anything. I'm just not going to spend it. And in the meantime, I'm going to challenge this law and the courts and to the people. This law of the IRS is unconstitutional. Congress, you should have never passed it. Go study the Founding Fathers.

[00:08:18] It was never meant to be a direct tax in the first place. It's never meant to create a tax court and be judge, jury, and executioner here. I'm not going to spend this, and I'm not going to faithfully execute this law. In fact, if I'm going to be faithful, I'm going to not execute this law, and I'm not going to spend any money related to it. And I'm going to appeal to every avenue I have, the Congress, the courts, and the people, that this stop immediately. That's what I'm going to do as the chief executive. So the point is clearly, ladies and gentlemen, if you're not careful, you get off on this impoundment versus ICA discussion.

[00:08:48] Neither of the discussions literally look at the supreme law of the land and the delegated responsibility to these branches of government we've given them. That's the problem with the debate and the discussion here. Yeah. I think that's the Constitution. The road back is not to look at all these modern manipulations. The only reason empowerment – I'm sorry. The only reason impoundment became a thing is because the presidents have exploited their authority wrongfully.

[00:09:14] So then Congress is like, oh, my gosh, we've got to rein in the out-of-control president. He's crazy. He thinks he can impound money everywhere. Let's create ICA. Well, now they've created another law that puts shackles on the president. You can't put shackles on the president for authority he never had in the first place. Right. Right? That's where the debate is. Anyway, very strange. But the reason I bring this up is Mike Lee is pushing this bill to get rid of ICA. The problem is it unleashes impoundment, which is not a correct principle in the first place.

[00:09:43] Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to get you caught up on it and get your take on this thing. To me, it's disaster. The whole discussion is disaster. Mm-hmm. Yeah. If you want to repeal ICA and in conjunction with that challenge the president's ability to impound money, okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Hey, you don't have authority to impound money, and this manipulated authority over you doesn't have the right to exist.

[00:10:09] Let's get rid of both of them at the same time, and we're taking our complete all-legislative authority back? Amen. Now we're talking. Mm-hmm. Lowell. Yeah. Yeah, that's the right way to go there. Absolutely. All right. Anyway, thanks for that. And speaking of that, this is the question. Should the president just take over Gaza? That's what he's saying, right? Yeah, well, he says he wants to take over Gaza. He thinks he's going to be the man of peace, the man of the hour. It's a disaster.

[00:10:39] Ron Paul writes a column against it, rightly so. Lowell? Exactly right. You know, a couple weeks ago, just Trump suggested that U.S. should take over Gaza and move its people to Jordan or Egypt, right? Relocate them. Just move them. Move them out of there. And make it Gaza, meaning make Gaza the Riviera of the Middle East. Yeah. Right. So, but he doesn't have any support. There's no country in the Middle East that supports this idea. He's going to come up empty-handed. Why would they, though? Let's just be clear.

[00:11:09] Why would they? Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, he's used to taking property and building a Trump Tower on it and making it very successful and, you know, for the rich and the famous, I guess. I don't know what he's thinking there. I don't understand why he would want to do that. I really don't. You know, I looked up the Riviera, Sam, just to remind me of what it is. The French Riviera is what we mean when we talk about the Riviera.

[00:11:36] It's the Mediterranean coastline of southeast corner of France, right next to Italy there. It was one of the first modern resort areas for the rich and the famous. Half of the world's super yachts are docked there. And 90% of the super yachts in the world actually frequent the French Riviera. The French Riviera has anywhere from 310 to 330 days of sunshine per year. So it's beautiful weather all the time, basically.

[00:12:04] 71 miles of coastline and beaches, 18 golf courses, 14 ski resorts, and 3,000 restaurants. Yes, it attracts tourists from all over the world. Although I must say I've never been there, Sam. Neither have I. That's what the Riviera is. And, you know, so here comes Trump with this idea that he wants to turn Gaza into the Riviera. Why don't we just take New York and make it the Riviera of the Western Hemisphere?

[00:12:34] What do you think? Well, yeah, it's on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. He wants to do something on that side, apparently. I know. I'm just demonstrating the absurd by being absurd, right? This is just crazy talk. Yeah, it is. Well, so, you know, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul came out really strongly against the idea. In fact, even South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was skeptical about the idea, which may be the first time he wasn't supportive of sending U.S. troops abroad, because that's what would be required.

[00:13:03] If you're going to relocate people who don't want to be forced out of their homes and off their property. But, yeah, you're going to have to do it by force, which means U.S. troops, right? Military troops would have to be involved. And most Americans are not excited about sending tax dollars to take over Gaza. In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans oppose providing military aid to Israel or other countries, right?

[00:13:29] And so, Sam, taking over Gaza really strikes me as a boondoggle that Elon Musk and Doge wants to identify and to eliminate. So, I hope that Musk and others can dissuade Trump from embarking on this scheme. It's just a huge boondoggle, in my opinion, Sam, and it should be stopped. Sooner the better. Amen. Paul writes, yeah.

[00:13:53] He writes, the U.S. ownership of Gaza accompanied by forcible relocation of Palestinians would cause increased resentment of the U.S. This could result in increased terror attacks against the U.S. So, it's not a good deal, even if everything went according to plan. And Ron's son, Rand, Kentucky senator, came out strongly against the idea. Believe it or not, even Lindsey Graham was skeptical of the idea.

[00:14:19] Probably the first time he was not supportive of sending troops overseas, though, for Lindsey. But anyway, it's right. And in summation, Ron Paul concludes on this critical topic. The best thing the United States can do to rebuild Gaza and promote peace in the Middle East is to stop funding Israel's occupation and blockade of Gaza. Instead, the U.S. should work toward peaceful relations backed by free trade with Israel and its neighbors. End of quote. Sam?

[00:14:48] And I agree with the quote. I didn't want to change it in my note because it is a quote, but I would go with replace free with fair trade. Yeah, fair. Yeah, when Ron Paul talks about free trade, yeah, I don't either. But when Ron Paul says that he defines free trade as fair trade. I get it. I just want people to clearly understand what we're saying. I don't disagree with Ron because I know what he means. I just want other people – because the problem is our enemies use free trade to say, oh, yeah, tariffs are bad. We shouldn't have any tariffs. We shouldn't have any way to level the playing field.

[00:15:18] We shouldn't have any way to reward the good guys that are into the free market and protect their citizenry. And, you know, we're fine with communist countries dumping products on the West. And, okay, that's not fair. That's not the definition of free trade as we understand it is the point. The best thing the United States can do, repeating it again to rebuild Gaza and to promote peace in the Middle East, is to stop funding – and he says Israel, but I say stop funding both sides.

[00:15:47] Just get the heck out of it. Stay away from it. Don't do it. Anyway, Joel Salatin has a piece that relates here too when it comes to how much authority the president has, Lowell. Yeah, and I didn't recognize the folly of foreign aid quite as distinctly or forcefully as I did after reading this article, Sam.

[00:16:15] He illustrates the problems with this foreign aid. He gave two stories. These are personal experiences that Joel had, and they're very good to illustrate the problem with U.S. aid to foreign countries. The first occurred about 20 years ago. He attended this conference in Italy, and, you know, whenever he wasn't giving a speech or lecturing himself, he was attending presentations by speakers from other countries, many of them from Africa and other countries around the world, who had received foreign aid.

[00:16:45] And every speech he heard, this is 20 years ago, began something like this. Quote, End of quote.

[00:17:15] You know, I never thought about the impact of free food on native farmers, Sam. This was eye-opening to me yesterday when I read this article this weekend. This is a horrible adverse consequence of foreign aid. And Joel Salatin was stunned by this revelation. He said this was 20 years ago when he went through this. He said he spent his days there apologizing for being an American, right? That's what he spent his time doing at this conference in Italy.

[00:17:42] He realized that this aid was, quote, about empire-building leverage, creating dependency, and just about anything except real help, end of quote. Sort of reminds me, Sam, of Ronald Reagan's, you know, quip where he says the nine most terror-inducing words in English language are, you know, we're here, we're the government, and we're here to help, right? And that's the big problem here.

[00:18:10] And so Joel Salatin's second experience was this. He says, after Chernobyl blew up and rained radioactivity across the dairy region of Belarus, the country faced food and economic deprivation because they couldn't drink their milk. The radioactivity settled in the mammary glands of the cows. The U.S. sent millions of dollars in aid to help, and a couple months later, a delegation from Belarus came to the United States,

[00:18:35] and a member of the delegation, who was a friend of Joel, asked if they could visit Joel's farm. Now, see, Joel Salatin, Sam, he has a farm in Virginia there in the Shenandoah Valley. And so these top officials from Belarus visited Joel's farm, and, see, they were the equivalent of the Belarus equivalent of our Speaker of the U.S. House and our Secretary of Agriculture. So they're way high up in the government of Belarus.

[00:19:01] Well, after touring his farm and while enjoying hot tea and homemade zucchini bread on his porch, they made the following comments. Quote, The day the USAID landed in our bank, every hotel in the capital filled with U.S. corporations selling equipment, seeds, chemicals, and other materials. We spent all that money in a couple of months on equipment we didn't need, on seeds that wouldn't grow, and on material too expensive to keep up.

[00:19:31] It was a circle. All the money went straight back to U.S. companies. If we had spent that money on what we've seen here on your farm, Joel, not only could we have fed our people, we would have had enough left over to export. End of quote. So bottom line, Sam, is that foreign aid cripples the country that receives the aid, and it enriches U.S. companies which sell their products to that country.

[00:19:57] Basically, U.S. taxpayers enrich favored U.S. corporations. Wow. Pull the lever of government in the favor of the few at the expense of the many. And then they export this dishonest, immoral, legalized plunder idea to the rest of the world. We should be a light on a hill setting an example, not creating havoc in foreign nations. Now, by the way, who wrote this article? Is it Skousen or Salverton? Or Sal? Yes. Salatin. Joel Salatin.

[00:20:27] Yeah. So just to be clear, I know you said Joel Skousen once. This is not Joel Skousen, this is Joel Salatin, a different guy that we're talking about here. And he's basically giving you his examples. Hey, we have plenty of resources. We can feed ourselves. We don't need you guys doing this, these people say in the foreign nations. And then the bottom line is foreign aid cripples the country that receives the aid and enriches U.S. companies which sell their products to that country. Okay?

[00:20:57] Okay? Basically, U.S. taxpayers end up enriching U.S. corporations all under the lie of just think how kind and gentle and service-oriented we are and how. Okay? It's a lie, folks. That's the problem with it. The U.S. should not send any foreign aid to anyone, anywhere, anytime, for anything, even to Israel. Yes, even to Israel, ladies and gentlemen. They can buy stuff. So can the Ukraine.

[00:21:26] Let's talk about a Paul Harvey quote to make this point, Lowell. Yeah, Paul Harvey said, why don't we hoe our own garden instead of hoeing others? And the same thing is true with our border. Why are we worrying about other people's borders? Let's worry about our own border, right? Yeah. Yeah, exactly right.

[00:21:47] And then Salatin ends his article with this idea that philanthropy can still exist, but you don't do philanthropy by forcing it, right? Charity doesn't come from coercion, right? So you can't build charity on a foundation of coercion.

[00:22:07] And that's the problem with, yeah, sending our tax dollars to rich U.S. corporations, big corporations, which is what – and I didn't realize that connection, Sam. I really didn't until reading this article, and that's why I wanted to point this out. There may be others, people out there listening to this who have not made that connection.

[00:22:29] You know, when we talk about foreign aid and we spend – you know, send a country millions and millions of dollars, I had thought that that foreign aid went to, you know, the countries, you know, so that they could purchase food and, you know, for their people.

[00:22:48] But it turns out that they just basically spend it on – you see, these big companies have lobbyists that they'll go over and they'll sell their goods to the company that just got this bailout of money from the United States. And so it really enriches U.S. corporations. It doesn't help the people.

[00:23:09] And then the free stuff that the people get, it puts the natives or the indigenous farmers out of business because they can't compete with free. How can they? Of course. So I have an uncle that – It's tedious. I have an uncle that was a big farmer, well-known potato beet farmer. He went over to these foreign countries, and he would say exactly that. He would say, listen, everybody wants to bring all this money in. I don't think that's the answer. And he would go over there and spend his time and teach them proper farming techniques and then leave.

[00:23:39] He didn't bring any money. All he brought was intelligence to them, showed them how, and then got out of the way and let them do it themselves their own way. And he said how tremendous that was. And so the philanthropy idea is good, whether it's time, knowledge, funding. That's all wonderful. But see, the people that do it in a philanthropist-type way or that do it in a charitable way, they oversee the projects. And it's actually valuable. This other way has got to go.

[00:24:06] Ladies and gentlemen, no military aid, no food aid, no construction aid, no nothing. Shut it all down. Get out of it. Charity can come from kind, good, God-fearing people. Leave it at that, would you please? Back in seconds with Lone Nelson on your radio. Hang tight, everybody.

[00:24:26] The institution is our guide.

[00:24:55] You're listening to Liberty News Radio. News this hour from townhall.com. I'm Rich Thomason. The Kremlin says Foreign Minister Lavrov is leading a high-level Russian delegation to Saudi Arabia for talks with senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Rubio. Among other things, they'll discuss how to end the war in Ukraine. They'll also lay the groundwork for a Trump-Putin meeting.

[00:25:20] European leaders are in Paris, an emergency meeting focusing on the Trump administration's stance on Ukraine. French officials are trying to make this emergency summit sound almost routine, an informal opportunity for European leaders to discuss a joint response to America's abrupt and unilateral moves to end the war in Ukraine. The French foreign minister told a radio station here that we must keep our cool and not be intimidated.

[00:25:45] But there is no hiding the anger and the confusion triggered by Washington's suggestion that it may sideline both Europe and Ukraine to cut a peace deal directly with Russia's President Putin. The BBC's Andrew Harding. Devastating flooding has claimed at least nine lives in Kentucky. President Trump has approved the state's request for a federal disaster declaration. And Governor Andy Beshear says a winter storm could add to the misery starting tomorrow and into Wednesday. One death in Georgia blamed on the weather.

[00:26:16] The president's slashing of the federal workforce goes on and more job cuts are expected to be announced this week. Efforts to shrink the size of the government payroll reached the Food and Drug Administration over the weekend. Sources say recently hired employees at the FDA who review the safety of food ingredients, medical devices, and other products were fired on Saturday evening. Meanwhile, there are reports that the IRS will lay off thousands of probationary workers as soon as this week. Greg Clugston, Washington.

[00:26:45] It's President's Day. That means there will be no mail delivered today. The post office is closed. Most of the banks closed as well, and the stock market has the day off. More on these stories at townhall.com. Wesley Financial Group is not a law firm. Hi, I'm Chuck McDowell, the timeshare cancellation guy and founder of Wesley Financial Group. And I want to set the record straight. I am not an attorney. I've never wanted to be an attorney. And the truth is I really don't even like attorneys.

[00:27:14] If I sound like an attorney, I'll apologize. But what I've learned in my 15 years in the timeshare cancellation business is you don't need to be an attorney to get folks out of their timeshare. At Wesley, we've helped over 40,000 families cancel their timeshare. And I want to share with you how we do it. Just give my office a call. I guarantee we take you as a client. We'll get you out of your timeshare or you'll pay nothing. Attorneys, this was meant to be funny.

[00:27:43] So please don't sue me. Especially my friend Kenneth from Black River Falls, Wisconsin. Call now for your free timeshare exit info kit. 800-613-5454. 800-613-5454. 800-613-5454. Mr. President. Senator from Kentucky. Reserving the right to object. I lived for four months in Asheville. Worked at the VA hospital. Still have fond feelings for Western North Carolina.

[00:28:08] But the thing is, is the reason why we won't do this in responsible ways is because the Senate voted to send all your money to Ukraine. I mean, they voted to send $200 billion to Ukraine. I've been all over the mountains of Appalachia when I ask people, would you rather that your senators take care of you here in Asheville or here in Pikeville, here in Appalachia? Would you rather them send your money to Ukraine? I don't get anybody wanting to send a penny to Ukraine. Look, you can have all kinds of sympathy in the world for Ukraine and hostility towards Russia being the aggressor nation, but we don't have the money. We're $2 trillion in the hole.

[00:28:37] Interest this year is going to be $1 trillion. And as far as passing this, I'm willing to let it pass today. He's going to object to passing his own bill today simply because it gets paid for. I'm willing to let the bill pass, but take some of the fluff and boondoggle subsidies from the Green New Deal and put it into here. The money's sitting here. We put it into here for disasters. We help Asheville today. Do you know what is great about America? Ask an Immigrant.

[00:29:03] Ask an Immigrant is a new podcast dedicated to helping Americans, especially our youth. Value, appreciate, and be grateful for the freedoms we have here in America. Join host Lydia Wallace-Nuttle as she interviews immigrants from around the world to discover their inspiring personal stories about why they came to America. To learn more about why America is the most prosperous, greatest country in the world, download the Loving Liberty app or go to lovingliberty.net. In the medical field, IT security is crucial.

[00:29:32] Our highly skilled consultants are HIPAA certified and have 20 plus years of experience servicing medical clinics, billing and supply companies. We offer comprehensive endpoint protection, guarding your computers and servers against all stages of threats. And with our 24-7 monitoring services, you'll never worry about extensive downtime again. Ready to level up your IT support? Call 801-706-6980 today and discover how great IT services can be with managed IT services.

[00:29:58] From atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West, you are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:30:27] Hi, this is Lowell Nelson riding shotgun this morning with Sam Bushman here on Liberty Roundtable Live. Sam Bushman, your host. Another great article here by Judge Andrew Napolitano posted at Ron Paul Institute last Thursday. He addresses a topic every one of us needs to understand, folks. Emergency powers are a myth. There's no such thing as emergency powers in the Constitution.

[00:30:52] You know, think of the basic human freedoms that were denied in most urban areas of the country when the COVID scandemic was voiced upon us, folks. Like going to church, going to work, shopping for food, operating a business, assembling in groups, traveling on government roads, right? These are basic freedoms that were denied us because someone had declared an emergency. This is flat out wrong. But, you know, does the Constitution allow for the declaration of emergencies and for the use of emergency powers?

[00:31:22] Well, of course not. You know, when the states formed the federal government in 1789, they did so pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution was written to establish and to limit the federal government. In 1791, just two years later, the Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights. The original understanding of the Bill of Rights was that it restrained only the federal government by articulating negative rights.

[00:31:48] And Napolitano explains here that a negative right is not a grant of freedom. Rather, it's a restraint on government. It restrains the government from interfering with the exercise of a preexisting freedom. Thus, for example, he says here, the First Amendment does not grant the freedom of speech because it, you know, the freedom of speech comes from our humanity. But the First Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing upon our freedom of speech.

[00:32:16] And then he illustrates this in the Ninth Amendment. He says the Ninth Amendment, which today restrains the feds and the states, is the work of James Madison's genius. Madison, who drafted the Constitution and later chaired the House of Representatives Committee that wrote the Bill of Rights, wrestled, along with his colleagues, about the best way to protect unenumerated rights.

[00:32:39] Well, you know, some of the founders did not want to enumerate any of the rights, you know, believing that enumerating some of them would embolden government to disparage rights that were not enumerated. And then there were other frameworks. And or keep adding to the list of enumerated ones as well. Whenever you get a list, people love to add to it. They were concerned about both of those realities. Yeah, exactly right.

[00:33:03] And so Madison's solution was to add a Bill of Rights and include the Ninth Amendment, which says, quote, quote, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, end quote. Right. You know, so, Sam, I must admit that, you know, had I been in discussion with the framers, I might have sided with that first group that wanted to enumerate none of the rights.

[00:33:29] Because I'm a big proponent of this idea that the general government has only the rights that are enumerated to them and all others are held by the states. Right. It's basically the Tenth Amendment. That's my position. Yeah. And that's the position of the framers. And here's what I would say to you about that. I understand your reservations and I don't disagree with them. However, what you got to remember is this. It doesn't matter which way you fall on any of these topics.

[00:33:55] Because in the end of the day, it comes down to the morality of the people. And if people are moral, they will respect the vertical and horizontal separations of powers. They will not exploit this idea that the presidents are doing with an impoundment. They would not exploit that. Therefore, we would not need this other legislation to restrict that. And we go on and on and on with this.

[00:34:21] And so what I'm saying is if you had fallen on the other side of it, then would have other problems because of the immorality of the people. And it'd be like, oh, man, we should have had that. We should have done this. We should have done that. Look, the founders weren't perfect, and I'm not claiming they are or were. What I'm telling you is they created the best balances they can. And then they came back and said, listen, this is only for a moral and a religious people. And if you guys jettison that, I don't care what you do. It won't work. And so I appreciate your point, and I don't disagree necessarily.

[00:34:48] I'm just saying that it doesn't matter where you go with some of these decisions. Let's say we didn't do it. Then we'd just be wrestling with something else because, again, immoral people trample the commandments of God and therefore the delegation of men. Right? Yeah. Well put. I'm absolutely right. You know, and I'm not saying your point isn't important. It's a valuable point to make.

[00:35:12] I guess I'm just trying to get across that, guys, we cannot, on the altar of this, think we can create an ironclad, hold them accountable thing. They'll just walk all over, and it's what they'll do. And if immoral people let them, then that's what we're going to get. If good, honest, moral men and women who are good, honest, and wise demand accountability, then that's what we'll get. In other words, we've got to look in the mirror, sir, is all I'm trying to say on this thing. Yes, exactly right.

[00:35:42] And so it is because of the wickedness of the people that we allow the emergency powers, we allow government to exercise these emergency powers. That's the theme of Andrew Napolitano's column here, and I think it's really, really true.

[00:36:03] You know, in the Milligan case, he brings this up, there was a critic of Abraham Lincoln named Lambden P. Milligan, who happened to argue in favor of secession from the Union. Well, he was convicted by a military tribunal, right? So he's a citizen, but he was convicted by a military tribunal of disloyalty, and he was sentenced to death. Well, he sued for his freedom, and he won.

[00:36:29] And in a unanimous decision, as cited hundreds of times, really, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the concept that emergency somehow creates or increases governmental power. The court condemned emergency. Uh-huh. Yeah, because there is a difference between power and authority, right? The court condemned emergency as more pernicious than any other stated assault on the Constitution.

[00:36:57] This condemnation is still the law of the land today, says Judge Andrew Napolitano. So this is the Milligan case. In fact, I want to read the language. There's just two sentences right from the Milligan case, Sam.

[00:37:38] Quote, Richard Mack and others. In the Supreme Court case, Richard Mack won against the out-of-control presidential seizing of power. Basically calls it the crisis of the day. Okay? What happens is you get the crisis of the day, whatever it be, and then they say, well, the only way to solve this is with special emergency powers. Wrong on both counts, ladies and gentlemen. The Constitution was designed for turmoil.

[00:38:04] Designed to create slowdown, to create separation, to chain men down with the Constitution, to stop their push for power. That's why we don't seek for power on this program. We seek to pull it down, Lowell. Yeah. In fact, it's even more important to obey the Constitution during a time of exigency, right? Time of emergency. Whether it's earthquake, flood, or fire, whether it's war, whether it's invasion, or whatever.

[00:38:31] But the time to obey the Constitution during a time of crisis is even more important than when there is no crisis. So I just really love the ruling in the Milligan case. I think the U.S. Supreme Court got this one exactly right. It was a unanimous decision, by the way, Sam. And they said, no way are we going to allow for emergency powers. And let me explain.

[00:38:59] Under the emergency powers is why they basically said, hey, let's have a military tribunal on this thing. He's a citizen. He should have never had a military tribunal in the first place, ladies and gentlemen. Mm-hmm. Exactly right. Because Lincoln suspended lots of constitutional protections, due process. Shame on Abraham for that, people.

[00:39:24] Exactly right, which is the subject of the column by Thomas DiLorenzo talking about President's Day. He talked about President Abraham Lincoln. Does he deserve to be honored? Some people are taught in public schools that Lincoln was the best president ever, Sam. I mean, that's kind of what I was taught. I went to public school when this was like in the – yeah, it would have been in the late 60s and 70s, right?

[00:39:53] It would have been early 60s and 70s. I was born in 57, and so I went to public school, and that's what I learned. He was the greatest president ever. But Thomas DiLorenzo, Sam, he has a different perspective on Lincoln. And so it's important to get his perspective on it. And I'm going to accept this perspective, and then what I'm going to do is I'm going to punch right in the middle, and we'll talk about that. Go ahead. Good.

[00:40:18] DiLorenzo says the truth is that Lincoln was by far the worst president in American history. He was certainly the most reviled by the people of the North during his lifetime, as Larry Tagg documented in his book, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln, America's Most Reviled President. I've never read that book, but it does look interesting. And thanks to the Republican Party propaganda machine, which essentially monopolized American politics for the half century after the war,

[00:40:45] Lincoln was transformed from the most hated and reviled of all American politicians during his lifetime to that of a saint. You know, see, there's a book called The Deification of Lincoln by Ira D. Cardiff, if you want to read more about that. So if you celebrate Lincoln, ladies and gentlemen, here is what you're celebrating. Lincoln destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replaced it with a union held together by war

[00:41:13] and the mass murder of southern civilians, at least 50,000, according to the Princeton historian James McPherson, turning it into something resembling the old Soviet Union more than the original American Union. And this is the biggest black mark, I believe, on Lincoln's presidency. He just turned upside down this system of federalism.

[00:41:38] He turned upside down the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to the state's rights to nullify and to secede. And thus Americans became the servants rather than the masters of their own government. And government's just powers no longer came from the consent of the governed, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, but from the barrel of a gun. So are you beginning to get why the state celebrates Lincoln's birthday? I thought that was an important question that Di Lorenzo stated there, Sam.

[00:42:07] He's saying because of this upside down nature of the government, that's why the state celebrates Lincoln's birthday, because they want this upside downness to continue. They don't want the states to realize the power they have, the sovereignty that they were supposed to have.

[00:42:29] And if we can educate our youngsters into believing that the general government is on top and is superior to the states, then you've got this top-down collective authority of the Congress and of the President and of the U.S. Supreme Court over all the rest of the states. And you have thus, you know, thwarted the original design of our government,

[00:42:56] which was that, you know, the states are superior to the general government that they created. So that's the biggest strike against Lincoln, in my opinion. Now, there's a lot of other reasons that Di Lorenzo states here that, you know, as to why Lincoln should be detested instead of lauded the way he is. There's a book called War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, written by Walter Bryan Sisko,

[00:43:23] which is based on the U.S. government's publication entitled The War of the Rebellion, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. In that publication, one learns how more than 22,000 artillery shells exploded in a six-month period in civilian-occupied Charleston. And that unexploded shells are still being discovered there today. And then you've got Sherman's four-day bombardment as civilian-occupied Atlanta

[00:43:50] after the Confederate Army had left the city with as many as 5,000 artillery shells exploding in a single day. And so thousands of survivors were rendered homeless at the onset of winter. Lincoln's favorite general called the site of corpses of women and children in the streets of Atlanta, quote, a beautiful site, end quote, because he thought it would cause the war to end sooner.

[00:44:16] It's just sickening, Sam, to contemplate the brutality that was rained down upon southern civilians because of Lincoln's policies here. And he rewarded these generals who did this damage to the south. And so, you know, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln used the words invasion and bloodshed as promises

[00:44:46] of what would occur in any state that refused to collect the tariff tax on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier. At the time, more than 90 percent of total tax revenue came from tariffs, and there was no central bank to legally counterfeit money. The south did not intend to send tariff tax revenues to Washington, D.C., any more than it would send them to London or Paris. And so Lincoln followed through with his threat

[00:45:13] and commenced the waging of total war on his own country over tax collection. And many would say that rises to the level of treason to make the point complete, Lowell. Exactly right. And I base this allegation of treason on the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1, which reads, Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, which is exactly what Lincoln did, Sam.

[00:45:42] Notice the word them is used here when referring to the United States in the plural, meaning the individual states, not the government in Washington, D.C. So what did Lincoln do? He waged war against the states. That's precisely what Lincoln did, and that's why I think Abraham Lincoln is guilty of treason against the United States. Sam, now I know you want time to rebut this a little bit and to provide some clarification,

[00:46:11] but that's essentially, you know, and we could go on and talk about the other corruptions that Lincoln did when he's... Oh, and there was plenty of, there's no doubt. So let me take this and say this. I don't want to rebut those points because those points are accurate. Yeah. Okay, let's be clear. Those points are accurate, and I'm not saying that they're not accurate. I guess what I would say, though, is this. You know, we want to dub Lincoln the worst man or the best man in history, depending on who you are.

[00:46:38] And I would submit that I'd back away from either side 100%. Did Lincoln make a lot of mistakes? Absolutely. However, you failed to recognize that Congress should have impeached him if he committed treason, and they should have impeached him, and they should have then, you know, removed him from office, and then they should have then, you know, prosecuted him to the fullest extent of the law for his treason. But Congress did nothing. So you can't... Here's the problem. We want to blame all the goods and bads on one man.

[00:47:07] I don't think that's a realist reality here, folks. You've got Congress. You've got the courts, the judiciary. You've got the states that have separation of powers. The states, if enough states would have went together, they could have stopped the president from that. So I'm not saying that Lincoln's right in any way. All I'm saying is that we love to shift blame, and we love to find a scapegoat and point the finger and go, there's the evil villain, by golly.

[00:47:34] Hey, Congress is just as guilty as Lincoln, and the states are just as guilty for not standing with the South to hold on to their state's power. And everybody's guilty of letting it become a discussion of slavery in the end. Look, the victors always rewrite the history, okay? That's the problem is that they tell it from their story. It wasn't really about slavery for the most part. Yeah, that was one of the tipping points, but it was really about states' rights, and that's what we're discussing now. But in the end of the day, and here's why I give Lincoln a little bit of a pass.

[00:48:01] When we get before our maker, and when we discuss this with Lincoln, he made plenty of mistakes, I'll be the first to say. However, if you believe, as I do, that the United States was created, founded, by God-fearing men for religious reasons, to follow the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with free agency, free will to do so, and you believe that that was prepared by God to make that happen

[00:48:28] in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ, which I do believe that, then you say, hey, the nation wasn't supposed to divide. People weren't supposed to secede from the union. We're building a free beacon on a hill to teach the principles of Christ in preparation for Christ to return. And so, you know what? As bad as Lincoln was, he did hold the country together. The country did stay together over this, better than the country being divided.

[00:48:56] And so we've got to understand this overarching mission. Did he make mistakes? Yeah, we could have got rid of slavery the William Wilberforce way and not had a war, for sure. But I would submit to you that the reason we had a war isn't Lincoln's fault either, really, although he made some bad acts along the way. The reason we had a war, folks, is because the nation was wicked and the Lord punished the nation for being wicked. Look, 30 years before that, they literally ran the Mormons out on a rail.

[00:49:26] If the founders created a religious freedom space in preparation for the Savior to return and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ran out on a rail, literally men, women, and children raped the women and murder everybody and kick them out, make them on bleeding feet, leave in the middle of winter. I don't know that a nation could be guilty of a more grievous act than that when the whole nation was built on a religious liberty tenet. And so as bad as Lincoln was, at the end of the day, he kept the nation together, which I think is a blessing as we prepare for the Savior to come.

[00:49:56] That does not dismiss any of his bad acts. But it does try to put it in perspective a little bit so people understand you cannot let nations rise and fall on a single man and give him the blame. Look, the people should have never been abusive to the Mormons. They should have never been abusive to the blacks. We could peacefully resolve those things, but only if there's a willing, humble, God-fearing people that takes the commandments of God seriously. And so I'm grateful that on the other end of it, the nation's still together.

[00:50:24] And that's why I'm against secession today. Let's prepare people to meet the Savior Jesus Christ. Let's realize the folly of Lincoln and many others in their misdeeds, no question. But let's look forward with an eye of faith and say, could I have done better? I don't know. In a lot of ways, I think I could have. In a lot of ways, I doubt it. And how much of a nation is on a trajectory based on the nation's past sins, even when a new man takes the helm? How much authority and ability does he have to single-handedly change all that?

[00:50:54] And what does he do when it's on a heck-bent course, punishment from God for former actions? You know, what does a guy in the middle of that do? And if he's wise, he prays for guidance and he does what God tells him to. How much of that Lincoln did or not, I can't say. But at the end of the day, because of Lincoln's actions and because of how it all went down under God's direction, the nation is together and we're preparing a people.

[00:51:20] This broadcast goes out not only across the nation, but to the whole world, Lowell. And we're teaching this idea that we've got to prepare people for the Savior to come because of our forefathers. Many of them made mistakes, no doubt. It's easy to judge history from our 2020 lens, but is it accurate or fair? I doubt it. So in that defense, I'm not here to celebrate Lincoln, but I'm also not here to run around and disparage him either. I'm ready to say, hey, he did things that were flat-out wrong and unconstitutional,

[00:51:50] and we're not going to make excuses for them. Let's make sure we don't do that going forward. Let's not let negative history repeat itself. But let's do be a little bit more kind and gentle because in the end of the day, hey, we are a beacon on a hill and we are preparing a people for the Savior to come. Overall, that's the big takeaway in my humble opinion. Lowell? Yeah, awesome, Sam. And I think we should learn from the mistakes that we've made in history.

[00:52:19] And you're exactly right, Sam. The Congress really should take the blame for most of this. Yeah, Lincoln signed the 10 tariff increasing bills, but guess who passed those bills? Congress passed them. And Congress dominated by the northern... Yeah, 535 people that are closest to the people than the president, right? Yeah, exactly right. And you talk about the Transcontinental Railroad, right?

[00:52:43] Subsidizing the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, which is, you know, Lincoln signed that bill too. But look who passed the bill. Congress, right? Representatives of the people passed that bill. Look who let Congress pass that bill. We, the people. Yeah, the people. Exactly right. And so, yeah, I'm totally with you on that, Sam. Here's another idea. So, be quick. I'm not making excuses for Lincoln, people. That's not my point. Right, right.

[00:53:12] But the idea is that what might have happened is, you know, had... See, South Carolina withdrew from the Union before the North began this war. They had peacefully withdrawn from the Union. Well, they might have... We don't talk about what might have happened. They might have returned to the Union 10 years later or 20 years later. Let's remember that Rhode Island never joined the Union in the beginning. They didn't join until a year or two later.

[00:53:42] The other 12 states that formed... You know, we talk about the 13 sovereign independent states. There were 12 to begin with, Sam. Rhode Island joined later. That's a fact. And so, yeah. So, let's not discount the possibility that had the states been allowed to withdraw from the Union, they may have later rejoined the Union. That's right. And we would have had more peace and prosperity in our country today, Sam. That's all I'm saying. It's the same thing with regards to slavery and Wilbur Welfare Force.

[00:54:12] He got rid of slavery without a war. We could have done the same thing. So, no doubt there's a lot of different roads we could go down. And that's my point is that, you know, I don't know what would have happened or what could have happened. I'm not dismissing the wrongs that Lincoln did. I am saying I'm grateful that we have a United States, a beacon on a hill, and if we turn to God, family, and country, we can prepare for Jesus Christ to return. And that is God's overarching plan. Amen, brother. Nobody can stop it is the good news.

[00:54:42] And so there you have it. Celebrate George Washington's birthday, will you? God save the republic. Have a look. Thank you.