Today, we visit with Jimmy Page, founder of Unstoppable Freedom Alliance.
It's a fun interview, and I'm the interviewee, and that is next.
Hey, welcome back to The Barry Ferrell Show.
I hope you're doing great.
I just had a fast paced and fun interview with Jimmy Page.
He's the founder of Unstoppable Freedom Alliance.
His organization is on a mission.
He's a happy warrior.
And if you've been with me for a while, you're used to seeing me interview other
people, but here I'm being interviewed by him, but it went so well.
We thought you would like to see the whole shebang.
What a great guy.
We talk about the courts, the filibuster and other stuff.
He's pretty gifted at asking questions, and I did my best to rise to the challenge.
I think you'll enjoy it.
So here we go.
Well, welcome to the Unstoppable Freedom podcast.
I'm Jimmy Page.
Today, we're going to tackle two really big topics that are threats to the
American system of government.
The first one is a Supreme Court, and the second one is the filibuster.
And both are under attack from the left.
They're literally trying to dismantle these key components of our system, of
checks and balances.
Well, our guest today is an expert in these two areas.
His name is Barry Farah.
Barry is the host of the popular podcast by his name.
He's a highly successful businessman, the author of three successful business and
leadership books.
And he speaks to groups on the foundations of the American dream, freedom
economics, and the American idea.
He's even made a run for governor of Colorado in 2018, and we sure do wish you
had won, I'll tell you that.
Barry, welcome to the show.
Thank you very much.
It's great to be on with you.
Did it, you know, the run for governor, okay, this isn't, this is just bonus
material.
The run for governor, was that, did you enjoy that?
I did.
I just didn't give myself enough time to build the rapport I needed to with the
assembly.
It was a lot of fun though.
And I enjoyed it.
If you've got an extra 30 or $40 million, I'll be happy to run again.
Okay.
Now that's, that's pretty sad to say that, but that's actually true, right?
Unfortunately, there's some truth to that.
Yeah.
The money and the influence in politics is pretty sad, but, so let's get right into
it.
It's no secret that the Supreme court, one of the three branches of our
constitutional Republic, we're going to talk a little bit about what that means
at some point, that the Supreme court is taking heavy fire from the left.
Ever since the overturning of Roe, the leftists have been calling for the
complete destruction of the Supreme court.
They're openly criticizing their decisions and worse yet in some ways,
they're allowing protests, sometimes relatively unpeaceful protests outside
their homes and others are talking about packing the court.
We're going to get into all of those, but before we do help us understand the
role of the Supreme court and why it's so important to the success of America.
Well, certainly, I mean, if you look at article one of the constitution, you've
got the legislative branch.
That's important.
You've got the house and the Senate and 2,200 and something words to explain how
that works.
Then you've got article two, the executive branch and about half the amount of words
to explain that.
And then number three is the judicial branch.
And the idea, the notion was in about 300 and something words for that.
So it's very important, but you could get to the punch of it quickly.
In other words, you didn't have as many issues.
And why is that?
Well, these guys were not going to be elected.
So you didn't have to go through all the explanation of what it takes to get
elected.
They're going to be appointed.
And why are they going to be appointed versus the executive branch being elected
a certain way and the legislative branch being elected a different way.
And in within there are two different ways of being elected for the house and the
Senate.
And the reason there is this Supreme court or the whole judicial branch set up the
way it is, is because it is supposed to be different than the other two where
there's an election.
That's why we have a constitutional Republic.
We're not a true, pure democracy.
Pure democracies can turn into a dictatorship, but a Republic has
infrastructure built into it that has what we've commonly called checks and
balances.
So the importance of the judiciary being separated is that they're supposed to
judge without contamination.
They're supposed to judge thoroughly and fairly and reasonably.
Now, of course, if you don't have good judges that breaks down, but that's what
judges are supposed to do.
So they're not supposed to be connected to mob rule and they're not even supposed
to be popular.
And they're not supposed to vote
according to the popular vote.
In other words, if the polls say
70% of the people agree with this and 30% don't,
that shouldn't have anything to do with
how they determine what they come to.
They should be purely ruling on the basis of law
and on the basis of the interpretation
of what the Constitution meant and what it said.
Which is pretty important, right?
And I guess in its original design by the founders,
it was not meant to be a political body, right?
I mean, it was meant to be independent by design.
Has that changed over time?
Has it become...
Obviously, it's at the center of politics, right?
It's getting attacked right now by the left,
but occasionally it gets attacked by the right.
Is it in its function?
Is it a political body today
or has it changed from the original design?
Well, the original design,
keep in mind there's always been rascals, okay?
So the notion that we only have rascals recently
is not probably fair to say.
So there've always been attempts
to use the Supreme Court for bad things.
The Supreme Court wasn't always proper,
but they did over time correct themselves.
So of course, there's the horrible time
of the Supreme Court ruling badly on equality.
And with the 14th Amendment coming in in 1868,
and then the following rulings that came as a result of that
people were to be treated equally,
regardless of what color they had and where they came from
and whether they were a man or a woman.
And so that's a good thing.
The Supreme Court got it right,
but if they didn't have that independence,
essential independence,
where there was that you're appointed
and then you're left on your own to make good judgments,
even at the chagrin of the guy that appointed you,
which has happened more often than not,
then you lose the potential to self-correct.
So what has seemed to change
is a concerted effort to use the Supreme Court
to get their way.
And so in the fifties and sixties,
abortion was this huge issue.
And it was one of the singular issues of certain movements.
And they believe that by having the ability
to force abortion through,
they would be able to accomplish
a whole bunch of other things
that were part of their agenda.
So this group of people
actually had a thought through plan of how to get there,
but they couldn't get there through legislation.
They tried over and over again.
The legislative body,
the body that's closest to the people
that's supposed to make the laws,
that group didn't make the law they wanted.
So they decided to figure out a way
to make a law through the Supreme Court.
And it was actually a plan,
a concerted plan over a number of years.
Larry Ladder is probably the foremost contributor
to executing this plan.
And so through public relations and everything else,
they accomplished the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision,
which was really not a very good decision.
It's not a decision that was based on constitutional law.
There is no word abortion in the constitution.
What the Supreme Court should have said is,
look, this needs to be a state issue.
And the Supreme Court really can't decide
for every state this law,
since this law is not clearly laid out in the constitution.
So since they couldn't do it legislatively,
they did it through the courts.
And that did change things a lot.
So then earlier on in the seventies,
all the way up to really about 85, 86,
most Supreme Court justices were approved.
There were a few that were blocked,
but most of them were approved on 80 to 90 to 10,
80 to 20 majorities.
So they were massive majorities
from most of the Supreme Court justices that got on
until Justice Bork.
And Bork was this extraordinary scholar
and he believed in originalism.
And he was this guy who had a command of natural law.
And he was able to just like put you in your place.
So are you older today than you were yesterday?
Yes, but it's relative I think today.
Regardless of how you feel,
are you less young today than you were yesterday?
Listen, that's a complicated question today,
hard to believe.
Isn't that too funny?
So he would use natural law and he'd say,
so he'd say, if I got you on that one,
that's a law of nature,
I can get you on all the other laws of nature.
So he was so eloquent and so powerful in his communication
that the left was scared of him.
So they Borked him.
And this was really the first time
that the Supreme Court nominee had an all out attack
against the nominee,
not on his jurisprudence capabilities,
but on the fact that he was too good
at what he believed in.
And we don't agree with him
and we don't want him to be on there
because he's gonna be able through natural law
to support an overturning of Roe versus Wade.
And then ever since then, it's become political,
mostly by the left,
trying to torpedo conservative justices
and not until Trump came along
and until really the Democrats changed the way that things,
rule works, which might be happy to discuss, did it turn out to be almost political of
who gets on?
Yeah.
But in terms of the Supreme Court operating politically-
Let me jump in real quick.
Yeah, please.
I'm sorry.
It is interesting to me that, because I looked at the Senate confirmation, what you're speaking
of in particular is the Senate confirmation process.
And obviously, now we just need a simple majority, I think, as I understand it, which is a change,
right?
And I'll let you talk a little bit about that.
But I remember looking, I looked at the scorecard and for years and years and years, all of
these Senate confirmation hearings would end with a vote, an overwhelming vote to confirm
candidates or to not confirm if they weren't qualified, if they were deemed unqualified.
But it was overwhelming until the Bork decision.
And then ever since then, it feels like to me, both sides are trying to appoint justices
that support their own view of how the Supreme Court should evaluate the constitutionality of laws.
There's no doubt that that's the case.
And I get that, right?
So I remember when Trump came in and he said he was going to appoint a certain kind of
judge that was originalist, right?
That would interpret the law against the original intent of the constitution, which I believe
is, of course, the way to do it.
No justice should be given the power to legislate from the bench, which it was that Roe decision.
You know, tell us a little bit about how the Senate confirmation requirements have changed.
Yeah, this is fascinating, actually.
I just learned this.
So you said I was an expert.
That might be a little heavy, but I read it on an internet somewhere and so it must be
true.
So going back to 1806, the filibuster was put in place as a rule.
It was rule 22.
The first 20 rules came in in 1789, right out the gate.
And why is that?
Well, it's because in article one, section five, it says the Senate can make up their
own rules.
The House can make their own rules.
They need to be governed by it.
Of course, it makes sense.
How am I going to have a chair?
How am I going to recognize somebody that's on the floor, et cetera?
So the first 20 rules were in place, 1789.
There's only been seven changes to the rules since then.
And in 1806, there were a few other rules added, which was rule 22.
And rule 22 basically put in this filibuster, which basically said, look, we want the minority
to always have a say.
And the way we're going to do that is we're going to let people stand up, make their case,
and they can delay things.
Well, finally, in 1917, they said, you know what, we probably ought to modify this so
that if two-thirds of the Senate says, shut up already, that we can have a cloture and
then force the debate to end.
And then they modified that in 1975 to three-fifths, so 60.
So that's where you have the 60 senators.
So since then, the filibuster's still been in play from 1970s on.
But really, all the way through the 1970s, it wasn't used that often.
A few times, a goofball would use it, and they would get overruled.
And then a few times, somebody sincere would use it for a good reason, and it wouldn't
get overruled and eventually change the dynamic.
But overall, the filibuster has stopped the country from going too far right or too far
left too fast.
That was kind of the whole concept.
Well, fast forward to Harry Reid, 2013.
Harry Reid's the head of the Senate, and he's frustrated as heck.
And he's got Obama, he's got the House, he's got the Senate, and he can't get any of his
appointments through.
And he's mad.
And these are just federal judges.
Because how many votes did they need at that time?
We need 60.
60 votes.
Okay.
So we're still in that 1975 Rule 22.
Rule 22's still intact, hasn't changed, not one word.
And they just added, I mean, they changed it from 1806 to 1975, but in 1975, Rule 22
is intact.
So the only thing that really changed is they added some exemptions, they said, exceptions.
They said, you know, when you're doing budget reconciliation, you don't need it.
That's why they were able to get the $1.9 trillion passed.
So budget reconciliation, you don't have to have it.
For some things, you don't have to have it, like army bases and treaties.
But you have to have it for major legislation, and you have to have it for appointments.
But in 2013, Reid's frustrated.
So he says, I'm going to use what's called the nuclear option.
People, what's the nuclear option?
Well, I'm going to invent a manipulative way to use Rule 20.
Now, you go to Rule 20, and it's funny as heck that they were able to pull this off,
but it's just a point of order.
So I'm going to have a point of order and basically put my resolution in the point of
order.
And then the presiding officer of the Senate will say, no, that doesn't comply with the
rules.
And then according to Rule 20, if it doesn't, now keep in mind, the Rule 20 was in place
to just say, let's clarify rules.
That's the whole point of it.
And we're going to let the presiding officer clarify it.
So now Rule 20 goes into place, and he says, look.
Then at the end of Rule 20 is if the presiding officer, the pro tempore president, basically
a guy who's appointed, he's number two in charge, and he operates as the president of
the Senate to administer just votes and stuff when the vice president's not there, which
is most all the time.
If they disagree with him, they can disagree with this administrative clarification of
a rule by just saying, okay, then I, the chair, say you, the president of pro tempore, you
tell me I'm wrong.
I'm going to say, let's put it to a vote.
No debate.
Rule 20 says you immediately vote on it.
No debate.
And then whatever happens, happens.
Well, they were never intending for this to be on a major issue, especially an issue that
Rule 22 says can't happen unless you have two thirds of the Senate.
Two thirds of the Senate have to agree to a rule change.
Amazing.
Unbelievably conniving sons of a guns, aren't they?
I mean, gosh, it's, this is why so many people get so frustrated is they don't know exactly
what happened here and it's kind of takes a long time to explain, but they kind of understand
in general that something bad happened.
They basically took this concept where you're supposed to have two thirds of the Senate
to change a rule by which everybody operates and they figured out a way to basically come
up and say, hey, I raise a point of order and then the president pro tempore says that's
not right.
And then he says, okay, I appeal, I appeal the ruling and I want you to put it to a vote.
So anyway, at that time, 2013, they had 52 senators that voted in concert with Reed with
this conniving plan.
And then 48 were Democrats and three, I mean, three Democrats and all the rest Republicans
said, no, we don't want you to do it.
So it was 52 to 48 and they lost.
And so I'm going to read you, I just found it here.
Okay.
So this is what happened at the very end.
Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21st, 2013, the threshold for cloture
on nominations, not including those to the Supreme court of the United States is now
a majority.
That's simple.
Can you believe that?
No.
So that's how they changed it.
So that's why all appointments now sail through just on these real thin little minorities.
It's amazing.
And the Republicans did the same thing in 2017 for the Supreme court, basically saying
Mitch McConnell said, I promise you, Harry, over your dead body, which is what it ended
up being, but I will do the same thing to you that you did to us when we get power.
And this is the crazy thing about things like the filibuster and changing these rules.
The power always goes back and forth.
I mean, I'm a Republican.
I wished it was always Republicans, but that's just not going to happen.
And so anyway, as a result of that appointments now sail through, and then because the Republicans
did the same thing on that same exact procedure, they said, we're going to do the same procedure.
They actually use the same words and just change Supreme court for the appointments.
And so now all appointments, Supreme court justices go through with just a thin majority
vote, which was not the intent.
It's amazing.
And it makes the, the judiciary a more political body because of it, because you don't really
need any cooperation from the minority.
You said, you said a couple of things that were really interesting in that one.
You said the rules originally were designed to make sure that the minority always has
a voice.
And I love that.
And I think that's the beauty of a constitutional Republic.
You know, we hear it all the time.
Everything is a threat to our democracy.
Oh my gosh.
If you've seen those, you know, I don't know if it's a meme, but they show where the news
system is all saying the same thing.
And they're all saying the same narrative in the same way, everything's a threat to
our democracy.
But truthfully, we started it off the program by saying, we're not a democracy.
We're a constitutional correct public.
What, what are the differences between the two?
We know, we know this.
We don't want to be a democracy, a straight democracy because a straight democracy is
simply the majority wins mob.
In essence, it's mob rule.
The contrast of course, is the rule of law, right?
That these laws are given by God.
These rights are given by God and we limit the role of government.
Tell us why it's so important that we're a constitutional Republic and not a pure democracy.
Well you pretty much answered the question with your question, which is exactly right.
So mob rule, which is great.
I like it that way.
Then I can just copy off of you and have a good answer.
So a constitutional Republic has a structure to it that prevents one branch of the government
from doing everything.
So a democracy over time allows for dictatorship.
I'll give you an example, Venezuela.
They had a very similar constitution to ours.
They had a constitutional Republic.
So Chavez gets in power and now he's mad as heck against the Supreme court because the
Supreme court keeps knocking him down.
They believe, they still believe in private property and they say, you know, you can't,
you can't just take away this guy's company.
So Chavez gets mad and he packs the court.
He does what the Senate is trying to do now.
He adds enough to the Supreme.
court to dilute the natural majority that they had before. So out of the 45,000 rulings since
he packed the court, guess how many of those rulings went against Chavez and his successor?
I would have to think none. Zero.
Zero. I mean, come on. It's ridiculous.
So then here's what happened. In his case, he was able then not only to pack the court,
but he's able to just basically make up laws and then shove them over to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court would basically affirm his law, which diminished the power of the legislature.
So the legislature were becoming and became, and now are, packed with people who vote
for the president. So the Supreme Court says yes to the president. Legislature says yes to
the president. It's a dictatorship. So democracies always tend toward either total chaos and anarchy,
which is rare, or what most of the time happens and what Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson and John
Adams were so concerned about, James Madison, all these guys were really concerned about it.
Talked about it a lot in our Federalist Papers. They adopt our constitution because it prevents
that. It prevents moving toward a kingdom. It prevents one guy from having control.
Here's what's interesting.
Or even a few, right? It could be just ruled by the few.
Absolutely. All this talk about the Supreme Court, just for grins, from January 1st through June 30th,
2022, what percent of the cases did the media tell you were ruled either 9 to 0, 8 to 1, or 7 to 2?
36% were ruled 7 to 2, or 8 to 1, or 9 to 0. 36%. So no argument on 36%. They were freedom issues
that you couldn't argue against. You had a hard time arguing against. So no argument there. That's
36%. Now, 67% of the 5 to 4 votes went with liberals. The media doesn't tell you that.
That was only 21% of the votes. But that 21 plus 36, that gets you to 57. The balance of the votes
were 6 to 3.
Wow.
That's just from January to June of 2022. That's the current Supreme Court. The one with this
incredible 6 to 3 margin.
Supreme majority, right. Yeah.
Sometimes the mix was interesting. You had Gorsuch connected with, I think,
Sotomayor on one of those. They were the two against the seven. It was for different reasons.
What I'm trying to say is the Supreme Court needs to be able to make their own argument.
They've got to be able to look at the Constitution and make their case. I'm not going to agree with
them all the time. They're not going to agree with me all the time. But we have got to accept
that the Supreme Court was put in place for a reason, as a part of our constitutional republic,
for the very reason that the majority is upset right now. To put things in place in
accordance with the Constitution so that your freedoms don't get vanquished.
Look at all the things that have been ruled against them that are related to the vaccine
mandates. Those were things that they didn't want to have ruled against them for those that
like to have power. But the benefit of them being ruled against is those freedoms have
been restored to us by constitutional authority. Now the Supreme Court says you can't willy-nilly,
as the government, tell a company right now that they have to have a vaccine.
That's because the Constitution made that ruling. That was one of their
five to four rulings. Or six to three rulings.
Yeah. I'm super encouraged to hear the... I mean, I would like it to be six, three on every issue
that I'm in favor of, of course. But I'm really actually encouraged to know that there is that
independent judiciary because you would not believe that based upon the media and the
villainization of our current group. You would think they're in lockstep on every issue. This
is totally polarized. That's just simply not true. So that's a super encouraging thing.
The other thing that you mentioned in this, and I think it was implied by what you said,
government is designed to be hard to change. It's designed to be slow. We don't like it
because it always feels like gridlock. I remember the days of gridlock where
it felt like the government couldn't get anything done. But in some ways, our system is designed,
maybe not for gridlock, but certainly to slow down the rate of change. Is that right?
Absolutely. Because originally with the Constitution, if you include the 10 amendments,
and I've got to throw the 14th in there too, because that's an area where we were really
harebrained and we should have gotten that way before 1868. And I know people wanted to,
but we know the arguments in the case for why it took... Basically, it was the Democrats from the
South that opposed it, is the bottom line. But when you put the amendments in there,
and you've got the constitution,
the 1791 version of the constitution,
you've got a pretty good government.
Now we've gone way beyond that,
but you had a pretty good government.
So what is in there?
You have article one for the legislative
and even within the legislative,
just look how brilliant this thought is.
We're gonna have 435,
eventually is what it turned out to be,
of these guys representing people,
and we have a population of 330 million people.
In each of our congressional guys,
it comes down to like 840,000 a person.
So one congressional guy is pretty close to the people.
He's got 800 and something thousand in his church,
in his chapter that he's representing.
So that's the 435.
They have to come up every two years.
So that's intentional.
They want you to be constantly campaigning.
I mean, people say that's so negative.
It's actually a good thing.
It forces you to be very close to the people.
It gives you more of the customer service
side of government.
I'm here to serve you and help.
Oh, you've got a guy who's blocking a development
over here for no good reason.
But here's what's interesting.
So those are two years close to the guy,
smaller territory.
Then you've got the staggered six year term,
which is so brilliant.
So it's staggered for the Senate.
And it's six years and it's a bigger territory.
It's the whole state.
And so that is really smart.
This guy in the Senate is gonna be more deliberative.
I've got six years.
I just got in.
Nobody's gonna remember what happened
five and a half years ago.
He's, you know, there's a, you know,
I don't remember the actual joke,
but there's a joke with the content of it
is basically the first year of a Senator
is his most honest because he's constantly
trying to do the right thing in that,
in the last, he's doing the right thing in the first year.
And then the last four years in the second year,
maybe sometimes in the last four years,
he's trying to get reelected.
So, but the first year is honest,
but the bottom line is it's staggered.
And so those two legislative bodies are not competitive,
which is powerful.
So the House can just run a majority
and just ignore the minority.
So if you took away the filibuster,
I know you want to talk about that at some point,
you take away the power of the minority to slow things down,
which is a good thing.
If we put everything in place
that the Democrats wanted us to put in place
this last 17, 18 months,
it would be, our country would be gone.
They would have taken away our voting capability.
They would have taken away all kinds of things.
They would have forced this gender nonsense on everybody
in a legal way with the feds being involved.
They would have forced a lot of churches to shut down.
It would have been unbelievable.
All of the stuff from HR1 and HR5
and Build Back Better got into law,
but they were all blocked because of the filibuster.
It's amazing.
And so we will touch on the filibuster
because it is so important.
And it's such a political football right now.
And it's so important that we keep it,
but let's talk,
let's stick to the overturning of Roe v. Wade
just for a minute,
because there was all kinds of conversation and hubbub
around how the Supreme Court of the United States
has no right to overturn what they call settled law, right?
Hey, this is settled law.
It's been in place for decades,
but isn't that exactly what the Supreme Court is there to do
to evaluate law against the constitution
and then undo bad laws in the event that they're bad?
First of all, they've done this before, right?
Yeah.
People don't know what they're talking about
because the way that the Supreme Court works
is actually to establish constitutional law.
So when the Supreme Court gets it wrong,
it's incumbent upon the Supreme Court to fix bad law.
So if you look at what happened
with the unequal treatment of people in this country,
the Supreme Court ratified bad constitutional theory
and made it okay to treat people unequally.
We had an amendment that overturned that
after we fought a bloody civil war,
but we still had people from the South, Democrats,
who wanted to keep some rendition
for themselves of discrimination.
They wanted to even keep their ability to have lynching
for people who aren't white,
who committed the same crime of somebody who was white.
Unbelievable.
And this is all the way through the fifties.
So the Supreme Court came in and overruled bad law
and said, no, we have to treat people equally, period.
Supreme Court's ruling, that is the new constitutional law.
So when you come up to the SCOTUS ruling,
the Supreme Court ruling for Roe versus Wade,
it's the only thing that the liberals care about
to some extent, because it builds on so many other
of their building blocks.
It helps defeat the nuclear family
and all kinds of other things they care about.
And it opposes all kinds of things I care about.
But let's just look at the law.
I will actually accept what a state rules on,
even if I disagree with it, if they legislate it.
It's close to the state.
Now you're not even talking about federal legislators.
I'm at state legislators.
You're talking about, you know, congressmen
and the equivalent of congressmen and senators
from the state, some of them called them house.
commons, et cetera, but they're close to the people. And if they vote on something and I
don't agree with it, I'll still comply with it. I'm not going to change that law. So I'm going
to respect that. But what the liberals wanted is for the Supreme Court to uphold a very fallaciously
put together law. There was really no evidence that that law was put together constitutionally.
And as one of the Supreme Court justices said at the time, this law was a legislative ramrod. This
was a legislative force that he had never seen before. They had just invented things. Neither
side asked for a trimester concept and the Supreme Court just invented a trimester concept in that
law. Just invented it and decided this is when life starts and this is when it doesn't. And that
was changed in 92. And Casey just made up their own law by changing from this trimester concept
that the Supreme Court just invented. It sounded very legislative. And then this Casey 92 law did
the same thing, except they changed it to the feeling of the mom. If the mom feels a certain
way, then it's okay. So, well, I guess in New York, you can feel like you don't want the baby
until the baby's out of the womb. Yeah. Yeah. It's ridiculous. And so it really was just bad,
bad. And the reason there was so much fear about it for so long, and the reason they had the
Borking thing going on, because Bork would have just blasted the credoodles out of them in one
big time. And he was so authoritative in the way he spoke and so smart, nobody could outsmart him.
So that they Borked him. But the reason they were so strong on, the left was so strong on
inventing this concept of coming against a Supreme Court justice for the first time in that way,
in a personal way to kind of attack him, not based on his jurisprudence, is because they knew that
the law that was crafted to begin with was faulty. It did not have a constitutional bearing.
Exactly. So for me, at what point can the Supreme Court uphold that it's unconstitutional
to allow states to make laws that impede on other people's right to life? So for example,
this decision, all it did, it didn't outlaw abortion. It didn't make it a crime. None of
that happened. All it did was send this issue back to the states. But at what point can the
Supreme Court consider the fact that an abortion could be infringing upon a greater right, a greater
natural right to life, which I believe is protected in the constitution that we all have the right to
life, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our documents, right? At what point could they
consider that? Well, Justice Alito, as I recall, I don't have it right in front of me, but he
basically mentioned that. And the way he presented it was, I can't remember the exact words, but he
basically said, I'm kind of amazed that none of the dissenters on this six to three decision
ever mention the right of the unborn child at any time. Not ever. I mean, is there no right
for this unborn child at any time? So he opened the door for what you're saying, which is to
circle back to that. Now, I don't think that's practically going to happen, to be honest. It's
just too potent of an issue. So I think what's going to end up happening is the states will
basically do what Europe kind of did up to a certain period of time where science is clear
beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I'm a person of faith, but for people who don't have any
belief in God, even to them, when there's no doubt that that is a person, then they basically rule
that it's illegal. And so that's coming to settle somewhere between 10 and 15 weeks. And of course,
with science and technology, it's getting fewer and fewer weeks, but it's becoming close to the
time that you're even aware that you are pregnant. And so that's already the way it is in Europe and
a lot of other countries, Japan, others. And so they were actually more conservative than the
U.S. on a national level, but there's a reason for that. They did it legislatively.
Ah, interesting.
And that kind of forces that. But yeah, I don't think that's going to happen,
but Alito opened the door for it.
Well, it's funny. I have my own personal opinion about whether that should happen,
especially living in a state like Colorado, like you and I both do.
Colorado just passed one of the most egregious anti-life bills in the history of earth. It's
barbaric, actually. Conferring no rights, like you said, absolutely zero rights to personhood
to the unborn child all the way up through delivery, which is just absolutely unconscionable.
It's revealing a bit about the actual agenda as far as I'm concerned, but I think that's the
perfect law to take to the Supreme Court because they have denied the unborn child any personhood,
any rights.
as a person. And I think we can, you know, you mentioned it.
That one, I think you would actually have, I think you would actually have an argument with that one.
Yep.
And that would be really interesting to see what would happen with that. I just don't think it's
going to happen anytime soon.
Probably not because
I think it would have to be down the road just because there's so much steam behind this one.
It would have to be maybe five, seven years from now, but I think that's an interesting argument
and Alito opened the door for it.
That's amazing. It is, it's so contentious, right? And you mentioned the difference between
science and faith. Science tells me when life begins and that's actually not in dispute,
right? There's no dispute biologically or according to science about when life begins,
but faith informs my opinion, my belief system about the value of that human life and whether
or not we should protect it and when, but science is kind of settled on this issue.
Well, science basically says that at conception, you've got all the elements and I'm sorry for
those who are confused about their gender and such, and I don't mean to be not compassionate,
but I'm not confused about gender and I don't think God is, but there is support for the
biblical concept of he created them male and female, which is a really powerful verse. It's
the very first part of our Bible. And the concept there is that there was a deposit of God on that
person created in his image. What's interesting is science actually kind of proves that out.
The DNA, the personality, the gender, that person is a male or a female at that time is known to
science at conception. And you can look this up on WebMD embryo or just type in a couple of things
and they'll explain it to you and they'll show you all kinds of pictures. Yeah, because of the
chromosomes, the double X or the XY, we know immediately what the gender of that child is.
And a lot more. And a lot more. That's right. DNA issues and such. So yeah,
if you're going to go to faith, the Psalm 139 concept has been supported by science.
Yes. Well, it's amazing. I think that this is going to continue to be an issue, of course,
and it's why we have to protect the role of the Supreme Court. One thing, real quick,
I want you to comment a little bit about why we allowed protesting outside of the Supreme Court
justices' homes when that is a clear violation of federal law. Isn't that right? It's a clear
violation of federal law. It's also a clear violation of state and city municipal law.
That is called weenie. That's called no sheriff stepping up and coming in when he could have.
Any one of those local sheriffs could have come in and just asserted their authority and said,
the heck with what everybody else is not doing here, I'm going to just assert my authority.
The local police could have asserted themselves. They've got municipal code that supports that.
You're not supposed to be able to go to somebody's house and harass them. You just can't do that.
Not even if you're a judge. Then you put on top of that the envelope of a federal
appointed position, and there's a whole other layer of protection. Then on top of that,
you put a Supreme Court justice, of which there are only nine on the planet. They have a specific
call out for you not being able to go against, to try to harass them in any way, shape, or form
to change their mind. All of these violations are, in my opinion, a sign of a really bad moment,
which really needs to get spanked. I'm hoping at these next elections, they get spanked badly for
it. But this is in contradiction to what the whole constitution is based on.
John Adams comes out the gate and says, look, man, this constitution is a republic.
It's kind of simple, but it's not got the capability to handle anything but a moral
people. You've got to have moral people running it, or it won't work. It's the same thing. If
you're not going to enforce the law, I mean, look at Portland, look at Seattle. These are
beautiful cities, gorgeous. It breaks your heart. You go to Portland now, you are afraid to go
there. You go to LA. I mean, I was born in Pasadena. I always had a nostalgia for Southern
California. You go to LA, I cannot believe how bad it is. The needles all over the place, the
level of degradation and safety, and that's all because you're not enforcing the law.
What they didn't do with the Supreme Court justices that's happening everywhere else is
really a violation of our whole code of ethic. You're supposed to uphold the law. When they
didn't do that, they really denigrated themselves, and that really needs to get corrected.
I think as just an everyday citizen, it's disturbing that people can be encouraged to
harass people when they're out in public, whether they're at restaurants. We saw that happen
with Justice Gorsuch and others. We're seeing a
elected officials, encourage people to get up in people's faces and harass them.
It's just the breakdown of a civil society based upon virtues and values that we used
to have in common.
And of course, it's part of the overall agenda, right?
To increase the control and power of those few in power and to really make the rest of
us just subjects.
You know, they had two organizations that I was able to find a podcast or two ago, and
I just spent the last one and I identified them.
And these organizations were giving bounties to give locations.
That's how they knew Gorsuch was at Morton's Chophouse.
And they were able to go and intimidate the general manager.
And of course, security wasn't going to wait around.
They got him out of there and they said, we're not going to wait to figure out what happens
here.
But, you know, he's just trying to enjoy a meal in a pretty fair, kind of a private type
of a restaurant.
It's quiet and sort of dark.
And you know, the general manager did a good job of saying, go pound sand.
We're not going to be intimidated by it.
But can you believe that?
They're giving people bounties to locate Supreme Court justices so that they can be harassed.
And then they have these people already, they're like, they can be ignited on the fly.
They pull the trigger and boom, you can get a whole bunch of people over to protest.
Yes.
Very, very, very bad.
That's troubling.
And that is not the way that our constitution is set up.
It's set up for good people to be ordered in a way with limited government so that you
can freely enjoy your life.
But it requires good people.
Yeah.
And at the same time, they're trying to take away our second amendment rights to not only
protect ourselves against the tyranny of the government, but also to protect ourselves
just in a common sense, you know, self-defense environment, which, which can you imagine
in the environment we currently sit in?
We didn't have that right.
And the good news is the court just ruled that, you know, you can't put unreasonable
restrictions on someone's right to conceal carry.
So I think that's another big win.
That was a six to three, that was a six to three win.
They got all mad about that, but it was a good six to three when it was based on constitutional
law.
You know, Thomas comes out and says, look, the second amendment is pretty clear.
I mean, it says shall not be infringed.
Yeah.
I mean, what else do you need?
And so he's like, you can't make it a weaker thing just because you don't like it.
Right.
And it was thought through.
It was one of the 10 amendments that survived.
Yeah.
Thank God it did.
I'll tell you that.
I mean, you know, I would hate to be in a situation where only the bad guys have the
ability to do significant harm.
And I would.
What about that Indiana guy?
Oh my gosh.
The young hero.
Yes.
And there, and it goes on unreported of course, but there's estimates that between 300,000
and 500,000 times law abiding citizens intervene and prevent crimes because they're concealed
carries.
I mean, it's incredible.
I believe that.
Yeah.
I can tell you that I just saw a statistic yesterday where 22 of the 400 mass shootings
were stopped.
Wow.
By a guy.
Yeah.
22 of the 400 were stopped.
And I think that's like since 2000 or something, 2000 to present, there's been 400 mass shootings.
I guess a mass shooting is three or more get killed, but that's still a lot and you don't
ever hear the media talking about, Hey, thank God for all of the 22 times, what half a dozen
people that survived because the good guy shot the bad guy that had a concealed carry.
He wasn't a cop.
The cops didn't have time to get there.
Yeah.
All of my military friends, especially the guys that did special ops, special forces
guys, they'll all say the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
gun.
Absolutely.
And you know, they're right.
We've covered a lot of ground and this is so important that we do this because we need
an educated citizenry.
We need people to know what our structure is.
But as we wrap up the show, you know, let's encourage our listeners, tell them what they
can do to make a difference and defend freedom and keep America strong.
What from your seat, what are some ways that we can encourage our listeners?
Well first of all, just read article one, two, and three of the constitution.
They're pretty easy.
It won't take you that long.
Read the declaration of independence.
Look at the Federalist Papers and educate yourself.
But what you can do is vote and you've got to vote with people that are closer to the
original concept of ruling and governing.
And that is that you're there to start with a freedom principle and then build and develop
legal theory and legislation from there.
You're not supposed to start with how can I control people and get something accomplished.
You're starting from a freedom principle, protecting that freedom principle, and then
administering what's to the benefit of folks from there.
And keep in mind that general welfare was to the states.
And so it's not for the federal government to determine general welfare.
It's the states to determine the federal welfare.
So I love it when people do that.
refresh themselves on the 10th Amendment, the whole concept of the states having a lot of authority was also another check and balance.
So you get the check and the balance within the legislative, the check and the balance between the legislative and the executive and the courts,
and the check and the balance between the feds and the states. It's a good mix of, hey, government, you serve us, we are the people. And this is a
government of the people and by the people, and it's for the people. Yes. And so I think when we forget that we end up with all these crazy bad
legislative ideas, and when we remember that, we come up with good ways to set people free and let them live prosperous lives.
Yes. Well, that is a great, a great and encouraging note to end on. Get involved, engage in the voting process, engage at the local and state
levels, because that's where a lot of this really gets settled. Very, you've been awesome. Thank you so much for the way you've undertaken
the topics. Yeah, you're the best.
A lot of fun to be with you.
God bless you, man.
I hope you enjoyed that. Unstoppable Freedom Alliance has some lofty goals. They encourage everyone to do their part to protect and promote
freedom. They have a passion to activate millions to organize and amplify the voice of individual choice and personal responsibility. Their
strategy is to tap into the strength in numbers concept. Then they endeavor to equip and train people to jump in with both feet. It's great stuff.
You can learn more about them at unstoppablefreedomalliance.com. I hope you enjoyed the interview. To your freedom.
Hi, I'm David Farah. Thank you for listening to my dad's podcast, The Barry Farris Show, Culture Shift. Click Subscribe now to be sure you don't
miss an episode. Share this podcast with your friends on social media and give The Barry Farris Show your five star rating. See you next time.