beacon of liberty, beacon on the hill, or civil war. You know, this is the contention. It's been that way a long time. And so here on Community Matters, we're going to talk about that today. But let's begin with Hugh Peter. We begin with Frederick Douglass. He was a black abolitionist. He was a very smart guy. David assured me that if Frederick Douglass appeared at his law firm today, he would hire Frederick Douglass immediately. And he gave a number of speeches and he did what a good speechmaker should do. He wrote it out in advance. You know, you can get all his speeches, all his major addresses, you can get them on the internet, which is a blessing for us all. And he was a great thinker before the Civil War. And he understood this country. He was a great patriot and a great, what do you want to call it, historical analyst of his time. 1852 is a day to the speech. And it was about slavery and the country. And July 4th. Why did you send that around, Peter? And what struck you about it? Well, actually, I think David sent it around. And, but it was actually the speech that I was looking at was called composite, composite nation. And that was done in 1869. And Frederick Douglass was a towering figure. He'd been a slave. He sought and created his own freedom and just became a towering speaker and a towering figure in American politics. And in the composite nation, he articulated three principles that are alive today for us, but under threat. And one of those was the absolute primacy and frequency of everybody involved, everybody there. We're all equality for all. That was one. The second one was racial diversity. He said, we need to be a nation of many people. In Chuck's terms, we're not a melting pot. We're a salad bowl, a fresh salad bowl. The third one, the third principle for him was religious liberty. So it was about absolute equality, racial diversity, and religious liberty. And those three, he said, make for a vibrant nation. David, you remind me too, because you were the guy who said it to me and I was stunned by it, stunned by the speech. Yeah, I thought it was a fabulous speech that he had come up with. And the reason why it was so brilliant, and Frederick Douglass was an absolutely brilliant guy who was a slave, freed himself by escaping and then became a speaker and a writer. But the composite nation speech talked a lot about the fact that at that time there was this anti-Chinese hysteria. This was the precursor in 1869, the precursor of the Chinese Exclusion Act that came in in 1882. And there was this giant fear of the Mongol hordes that were going to come over and take all the women, take all the jobs, take all the riches, and wipe out the white man.  The Chinese are not this monolithic horde that's going to be loyal to the emperor. They're people just like us. And we should embrace them because they are hard workers. They want what we want, which is freedom, which is equality, and they are going to be hard workers, and they're going to move this country forward. And so for him to say that was a tremendous thing that I think was prescient as well as a forerunner that is important today because I see, I contrast that with the Chinese Americans who have been, in my word, hoodwinked, to take on the anti-black, anti-affirmative action, anti-Harvard affirmative action policies and say, hey, we want like the current system because under the current system we succeed and the rest of you guys don't. And so we need to do that now. And I contrast that with that. And he had an ecumenical wide open. Let's everybody get in here and let's all work together and it's going to work. It was a fabulous speech. And impactful, just one more thought to add on to what David said. He was described, this speech was described as, I wrote it down, audacious optimism coupled with fierce determination.  What a tribute to something that's more than 100 years old, a speech. He could run for president today. And the other thing, I just want to contrast that with his speech in 1852, he gave a July 4th speech, which was a very dynamic but a darker picture, which where he was basically saying, hey, America, you're having this giant celebration of freedom, equality, liberty, truth and justice. And you're inviting all the slaves and you're saying, hey, you don't get to participate, pal. You're the worker bees. And he was saying that, the worker, the blacks got paid for their work with the lash and religion. And the white man was getting all the money. And so you contrast that picture where he's saying, this is not right. This is wrong. And making that statement about how evil slavery was.  You can't be discriminatory against the Chinese, just like you can't be discriminatory against the blacks because four fists of the world is not white. And these ideals of the nation are great. And if we allow immigrants to come in, they're going to be hard workers, they'll do great things and we'll have a great country. So I thought it was just a tremendous intellect who came up with this stuff and who gave these speeches. And so much of what he said is relevant today. It's extraordinary. You know, he was talking about Passover and the Jews too. I mean, he had all these issues under his belt that are still relevant. Really extraordinary. He was a great thought leader. Chuck, your thoughts? All of those are important insights. Other things that are really important lessons for us now. Douglas, perhaps more than anyone in his time, recognized, elevated and prioritized the value of diversity in all aspects of life, in relationships, in work, in decision making, and studies have borne that out for several decades now. And another thing that he did that was really striking was that he emphasized the scientific basis for equality that races don't qualitatively differ genetically. And all of those things are still part of the struggle on the table now, even though it's been 150 years that we've had evidence verifying that he was right on the mark. But what's troubling about it is just exactly how totally relevant that all these speeches were, his whole position. And I get concerned about the fact that we may not have moved off where we were in 1852 or 1869. And I guess that's the fundamental point of this discussion here today. We're still fighting those fights. Yeah. Yeah. We're still fighting the Civil War. And yes, we're not finished fighting the Civil War. It's not as if we can turn around and say, oh, yeah, well, we handled that. We haven't handled it. And there are people who are into this kind of racist nationalism and bizarre religion. He talks about that in his speeches. And we still have that. If he were here today, sorry, he could make the same speech. Terrible. You know, the other thing that's interesting to me is that racism is not just limited to whites against people of color.  I mean, just terrible stuff. And you had Kevin De Leon and these other Hispanic leaders not saying anything, and they were all plotting how they were going to hold on to power for Hispanics and denigrate the power for the gays and the blacks. So it was all about power, wealth, money, and the story of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting, absolutely, is absolutely true. So that to me, it's all about power. And that's what we have today. You've got elements of the Republican Party who will, like Lester Maddox, say or do anything to cater to the far right.  Andy Borowitz had a great thing, because Trump, I didn't recognize the man because he was wearing a white hood. Barowitz is too funny. So why did you send the speech that you sent around, David? What motivated you to do that? You know, because I found it one intellectually interesting, fascinating. It speaks so much to what we are facing today. And there is a dearth to me of communication of these intellectually interesting commentaries and broader themes that are so important. And so that's why I sent it around. I thought, oh, my God, this is so exciting to me to read this. And I'm thinking, my God, that guy was brilliant. It was a hundred years, no, 150 years ago, you know, when he did this stuff. And, you know, we're still fighting that stuff. But we're always going to fight it, I think. And it's too bad. I mean, because at the same point in time, that Frederick Douglass was writing abolitionist speeches and giving abolitionist talks around the country, Europe was terminating slavery.  Peter, why did you send your speech around, which is the one I mentioned in 1852, and when David was talking about what to the slave is the fourth of July? Why did you send that one? I'm not sure if I did send it. Maybe I did. I don't remember. But I tell you, the thing is what hits me is that we are in a particularly dangerous and malevolent moment in the country. We're somewhat immune to it here. I'm not totally immune. I can tell you about that. But I think part of what's resonating is that we're in a time and a moment where civil disturbance, civil wars, civil disobedience, civil confrontations are right on the edge. And January 6th was one version of that. I'm glad that, you know, Siddish's conspiracy has found a name and they found a place and it's been established at least as a credible fear, credible, what, you know, penalty or potential penalty. So, it's in contrast with Frederick Douglass, what he was saying then and what we are facing right now. That's the poignant thing for me. So, Chuck, the other piece that went around was, I can't remember who's sending what anymore, was called an atmosphere of violence. Stochastic, S-T-O-C-H-A-S-T-I-C, terror in American politics. The definition, this is a very simplistic definition, of stochastic is randomly determined having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed specifically but may not be predicted precisely. So, Chuck, can you connect these things up? We have that article and we have the speeches by Frederick Douglass and we're trying to make some connection between the middle of the 19th century and right now looking at no stochastic. Well, one of the things that we see graphically and tragically is that the mass killings, which were hangings, lynchings and mass murders that were overtly and predominantly racial for a large part of the 19th and early first half of the 20th century, those are still continuing. They've just gravitated to a higher level of weaponry. But we're still seeing in synagogues, in mosques, in schools, mass killings that are very racially oriented, that are still throwbacks to exactly the kinds of prejudices, the kinds of divisions that Douglass was trying so hard to bring into the light and move forward. Are you saying we haven't made any progress, Chuck? Not much. I heard that. You know, there was a moment when President Obama got elected where we were all patting ourselves on the back and saying we've turned the corner and it's a new era. And then after Donald Trump got elected, I sat down and I said, geez, how could I have been so wrong? How could I have misread this country so badly? And what are we going to do now? Okay, because hopefully two steps forward, maybe one step back as opposed to one step forward, two steps back. So I mean, I am hopeful. But it is a continuing saga.  You know, just there's a lot of hate out there. And there's all the anti-Asian violence that has occurred. It has terrorized the Asian communities, the Chinese communities, the Japanese communities, the elderly who are just in fear of random violence that is going to come out. Well, we have it and we can explore just how bad it is. But I want to explore with you, David, as a lawyer and a litigator, this whole notion of stochastic. Because as a lawyer, you see this happen. You see somebody like Lindsey Graham get up and say, if you indict him, there will be violence. And the question is whether he's reporting that as a fact, as a prediction, or whether he's calling for it. And the whole Trump dog whistle thing seems to be calling for it. Now, you have a lot of trouble, and they are in the insurrection investigation in Congress, and maybe in the Department of Justice too, connecting all the dots. And say, just because he said, let's fight like hell, was he really calling for a violent attack on the Capitol? And I think stochastic comes to mind here. Because if you say, all these people are good people, including the bad people are good people, you're really encouraging them, giving them license. And they take it that way. There's a communication. And I think, you don't have to go too far to convince me that the fellow who made that communication is giving license to somebody who uses that communication to be violent. So does American law, David, it's a hard question, does American law connect it up? Is this within circumstantial evidence? Is this is this whole notion of dog whistle and stochastic violence, something you can prove in court? Well, I think it is. And I mean, yes, the Republican Party, which is enthralled to Donald Trump and the far right, has adopted the mantra that January 6th was just another form of civil discourse that was perhaps a little more extreme than debate, but not much and certainly accepted.  Now, I think the courts and the lawyers are saying no. And that's why we're convicting a bunch of those people and sending them to jail. Whether Donald Trump will get indicted for his statements and his encouragement of the January 6th thing is yet to be seen. I mean, Merrick Garland appointed a special prosecutor to take a look at that stuff. And so I actually hope it happens. I don't know. The political wheels move slowly. But I think that the the important thing is, is that this is happening. There are these calls for violence. They're thinly veiled. This is just another way. It's like when Mao unleashed the Cultural Revolution by giving the signal to the Red Guards that we had to discipline the old people and we had to discipline ways of thought and just unleashing this reign of terror as a political move. That is what Trump has done. That's what the Republican Party has done. That's what people are trying to do.  You know, Peter, we've had in this in this year, 2022, hundreds, you know, different sources tell you how many hundreds, but there are hundreds of mass murders that is more than four people killed, usually by assault weapons or high capacity weapons. And it's getting worse every year. It's getting worse. And, you know, Trump hasn't condemned it. The Republicans haven't condemned it. The condemnation by the Biden administration may or may not be strong enough. But my question to you is we have this, may I call it a civil war of violence all over the place where there's more violence now than ever in our collective lifetimes. Okay. And there are people who not only don't condemn it, they call for it. They remark about it. They do lots of things that foment and encourage and give license to this kind of violence. Is there a clear, my same question, is there a clear connection there so that we can get, you know, some legal relief on this? Because I suggest to you that if there wasn't the dog whistle, the violence would not be at the same level. I'm skeptical that, I mean, I've been involved in and around the courts for a long time. And I'm very skeptical that the evidence will be produced that will connect generic statements to specific moments and incidents. And that's certainly true with Trump and the January 60s. There's a stronger case on the documents at Mar-a-Lago than there is on the January 60. But we'll see. It'll play out soon. But this stochastic business is all about what David said, thinly veiled statements that are kind of aiding and abetting people's worst intuitions and impulses and almost encouraging them towards violence. And that's certainly not doing anything to discourage it or condemn it afterwards. So you know, the way it looks out, right, looks to me is, you know, what you have are people who are angry and leaders who are angry, and leaders are speaking in generalities, and people take very specific precipitous actions. Hard to prove, I think, hard to prove. I'll leave it to David and Chuck to be the proof positive on that. Well, let me drop that one on Chuck then. I'm skeptical. So what we have is hundreds of people who are at the insurrection have been charged, dited, convicted, and to varying degrees punished. But these are the recipients of the stochastic messages, the dog whizzes. They're the dogs. They're not the guy who initiated the message in the first place. And the guy who initiated the message, and there are a number of them, not just one, who initiated the message in the first place, he walks. So we need to deal with this kind of violence. I'm sure Frederick Douglas would have some ideas about it. But can we solve this problem simply by looking at one side of the equation and not looking at the other? Because it's rising. And despite all our efforts to prosecute these thousands of people who are at the Capitol, it hasn't changed the level of violence in the country. That's been going on higher. So don't you think we have to nail the people who send the message in the first place? How can we do that? Well, that's a great insight and a great question, Jay. And a couple of things that it brings out that Douglas highlighted years ago. One was that the more the need for the rule of law to be effective gets politicized in particular situations, the less effective it is. That's been a weapon that Trump, the Maga Republicans and the GOP generally have used to their very great advantage. The more they can politicize things, the more people push them away, the less weight they have in society, the less strength and motivation there is to actually enforce accountability. And if you look back to Douglas's time, that's exactly what was happening then. The pervasive violence with virtually no accountability, obvious to many, people knew who was involved, they knew who did stuff. And the second element of it is that Douglas exemplified by the model he set, one of the elements that can actually help influence and change directions in areas like that. And that is the three C's, conscience, courage and charisma in leadership to galvanize people that this needs to happen. The arguments have been made, but we haven't had people who have exemplified those three elements in ways that can bring people together, the MLK's, the Gandhi's, the Mandela's. We could definitely use a few of those. We could use Frederick Douglas, actually. I love to put him up against Mitch McConnell. Well, Mitch McConnell is of no help. He's a zero. He's not a hero. I had a very influential biology teacher. I started out thinking I was going to be a biologist, an aquatic biologist. And I had a very good anatomy, comparative anatomy teacher. And one of the things he said was we don't know a lot about a lot of things. We know the temperature at which water boils, but we don't know which molecule boils first. So here you have these dog whistles. Here you have these big innuendo-laden comments made by leaders who really are kind of using the anger that's out there. They're using it. They're deploying it. And they couldn't tell you what will happen as a result. And when it happens, they deny it. So we don't know the molecules that will boil first. We know the temperature at which things boil, but we don't know what will boil. What we do know is that there's huge anger out there. There's so much anger. And I encountered some of that the other day. I mean, I walked to the public library here in my neighborhood and somebody was pissed off and said, what are you doing here?  And I went, whoa, what's that? What did I do to you, bro? Yeah. So there's just anger. And people now have so many means of expressing that anger on all the media channels and all the social media, whether it's Twitter or whether it's Instagram or Spotify, whatever it is. And so people haven't learned the art of shutting up yet. You know, Tito ran Yugoslavia for a long time.  You can't act out. And it worked.  He was a conservative leader. He was an autograph, for sure. But with that approach, people did not act out. Right. But once he left, they really acted out. That's what I mean.  We don't have that really. I mean, we have from that, but nobody holds him accountable. And he would never hold anybody accountable on a moral basis. So I guess, you know, I come back to the question of, we're in a civil war, where people are acting out, but somehow they take license. And nobody seems to be accountable for this sort of thing. I personally, as Chuck knows, I personally doubt we're going to have indictments here. And if we do have indictments, they're not going to be, they're not going to result in prosecutions and convictions and the like and before 2024. And section three of the 14th Amendment, for that matter, section two of the 14th Amendment is not going to come into play. So the result is that we may have a leader who is bent on destroying the country for whatever reasons. And you know, the problem I have is that what goes along with that is the violence, the very violence that Frederick Douglass was talking about. And I don't know if he had a solution in any of his speeches, but we really do need a solution. And you know what? Let me say that maybe we need to look at our system of laws differently. Maybe the stochastic thing has to be somehow respected in the rule of law, or at least given credence.  But the law doesn't really reach him for that, as you said there. So maybe the law has to be changed. Anybody want to take a whack at that issue? I think the former attorney general here should address that.  On the other hand, as having done some criminal defense in my time, you know, if you don't have really rigorous standards standing between the state and the punishment of the populace, you can go off the rails pretty darn easily, where the power of the state, which may be directed at white supremacists today, could go off the rails and be directed at people of color and normal citizens tomorrow. And so that's the question. That's that's the tension of having provable guidelines and measurable standards to convict people and hold the state to that, because the power of the state is pretty darn awesome. Yeah, we knew you'd say that. We knew you'd say that. What did you want to add, Peter? Well, I wanted to ask David, I mean, isn't that part of the reason why prosecutorial strategies would say go for the lesser charges that you can prove, as opposed to the big one that, you know, is politically challenging and legally evidentiary challenged? So I mean, I think that's, you know, that when the Al Capone went to jail on tax evasion, they didn't go there for murder. And Trump is under fire really probably from our logo documents more than he is on on the January 6th and being a precipitator of that. So I mean, I think the legal system has some flex and they'll go after him after people. And that's, you know, I think the bigger question for me is, what is everybody so volatile and so angered about that they become weaponized so easily by the leaders? It blows my mind, you know, as sociologists, that's my field, that's what I... But it's the reality. It's the reality. It's not something we can get under. But let me ask you this. So we have, as someone said, there's 600 events of mass shooting per annum in this country. All right, it's bad.  We have that. It's bad. But let me assume for a minute, let me ask you to assume for a minute, then instead of 600 events, we have 6,000 events. And it's on every street corner.  And we have a dysfunctional or non-functional congress and various state legislators, legislatures, and what we have is a complete lack of democracy. If he gets elected again, I think we're headed in that very direction. So at some point, it becomes intolerable. At some point, this notion of the rule of law as we have known it may be under such arrest that in order to save ourselves, our public safety, in order to save our society, our democracy, we have to do draconian things, not things we would like to do, not things we would want, not things we ever had to do, but in order to save ourselves. You see that point? I see little creeping tendrils of that. I see things that are inching that way. And I'll tell you a personal story. I have a very close buddy of mine who lives up in Washington State up in a place called Anacortes out in the ocean. And he's an artist. He's an oddball artist and a guy I was in the Peace Corps with. He was in our group. And he's been a shooter. He's been a gun guy, but he's not a fanatic. And he likes to go target shooting. He's got some old guns. And he keeps urging me. He says, Peter, things are getting worse. You want me to send you one of my 38s. And I said, no, I got too many grandkids running around the house. No, but I think that's what we're moving towards is a lot of self-help and self-protection. And armament. And I do believe that we will reach something like a civil war. We're already creeping towards it. I've been writing about that. I have a novel about that, that's sitting with a literary agent. I think we're on the cusp of that. It won't be blue and gray as it was in 1860 and 65. It won't be like that. It'll be a very different kind of a more chaotic and a more anomic fight. But I do believe we're moving there and that we're losing certain of those qualities that Frederick Douglass was trying to champion about tolerance, about diversity, about equality, about, I mean, they're just eroding. Those things are eroded. And in that environment, people will start to do dangerous things. Whether that will happen, why or not, who knows. What about you, Chuck? We've talked about what does civil war, as it exacerbates, would look like? It's not going to look like 1861 or 1865. It's not going to look like that. I think we know that. And it may be this kind of lone wolf thing that we see, but lots and lots of events. And we realize that that's all sort of a political motivation. And boy, the word political can reach out in every direction. You can politicize your breakfast if you want. So what about that? Where is the breaking point? Are we simply going to ignore that until it comes in front of our house? Are we going to ignore that until we lose our civil liberties? Right now, Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong is being tried. He made very well. And he has been a beacon of democracy there. He is a great hero in Hong Kong. He did, what was it, the Apple Daily Apple for a lifetime. And now they got him in handcuffs. This is a very genteel guy, an intellectual for sure. And they got him in handcuffs, and they're talking about putting him away in a slammer on the mainland forever. So it's very troublesome that the First Amendment is in jeopardy. If we start losing our civil rights, it's not only who's on the sidewalk yelling at you. It's not only that your legislature is completely out of its mind and knocking off social security. It's your very life. Where do you find the point that you begin questioning whether you should have a gun in the house? That's right. It's the right way to frame it. It's the right question. What's the point at which you take self-help? Yeah, well, it's tough. Well, I think one of the things that we really need to pay attention to from the lessons from Douglas is he did connect the dots. We can, the four of us do, and many people do, but many don't. The one is that Trump not only incites and motivates political violence to its ultimate point, up to and including physical harm and doubt. He also advocates and promises no accountability. He promises, okay, on you, January 6th, folks, reelect me. I'll pardon you all. He is an advocate of no accountability for political violence no matter how extreme, no matter the consequences. Five people died on January 6th. That's on his head. He motivated that. The second thing is the counter-example that Douglas provides is he did his very best to humanize the values and the conversation to remind people that's the context in which we need to understand the people, their relationships, and the conduct involved here. And the farther we get away from that to allow politicized violence to be unaccountable, the farther we'll get from the rule of law. I have to pick on David for a minute. David, do you mind if I pick on you for a minute? No, you go right ahead, Jake. You've had it all your life. Okay. Let's keep going. There is a question about whether the lawyers are doing their job at dealing with the kind of Michigás from Trump. And the American Bar Association went along. They didn't really complain about what he was doing. They didn't take a position against some of his machinations. And in general, who in the country knows the law? Who in the country is trained in the rule of law? It's the lawyers. You remember Shakespeare, the first thing we do. But my concern is if you looked around at the bar nationally, you would wonder whether the lawyers are willing to lay down their careers, lay down their fortunes, their sacred honor, their lives to protect the rule of law. And my answer to you is, I don't think so. That's an interesting question. First, lawyers do a lot of good, but I'm not here to defend the profession because they're the profession that people love to hate.  But the lawyers can only operate within the law. I think that the answer to political violence, unfortunately, is communication and having leaders who stand up. Leaders who stand up and speak out against it like Frederick Douglass. Leaders who, like Chuck is mentioning, have charisma, have courage, have communication. Who can do all of those things because it is only by serving as positive role models and having those people out there to do that, that we can bring along the better angels in the populace. I go back and forth from depression about the American populace to hopefulness. When they throw out the election deniers and we retain Democratic control of the Senate for now and the Republican red wave does not come in and Donald Trump is getting this, I remain hopeful.   I got to get these people.  And that has been Trump's message before. It's the authoritarian message of Xi Jinping. It's the authoritarian message of the Hungary president or the guys over there and Viktor Orban over there. Yeah, in some of the Eastern European countries. And unfortunately, I mean, I still believe in liberal democracy. I still believe that it will win out and that people will respond to that. But sometimes I have my doubts and the lawyers can come along and help that they are constrained by the laws. Now, how immune are we in Hawaii to these national trends that we're worrying about? Well, just wait until we start getting some gun shooting because of the concealed carry that our esteemed or not so esteemed Supreme Court has fomented here. Now we're going to have a whole bunch of guns. We're going to have the DD shooting incident become commonplace. And it will be very unfortunate. There's a bill in the Honolulu City Council that would create done free zones. And there is some pretty strong opposition to that bill. I'm saying, who is doing this? There's a Republican group that's growing in our state and taking these positions consistent with the GOP. So the answer, Peter, is I think it's changing. It's dynamic. And we are subject to the same infection. It hasn't gotten as far with us as on the mainland, but we're subject to the same risk right here in Hawaii, even though we're a wonderful blue state still, hopefully. I'm worried about that too. I worry about the erosion of the social compact here in Hawaii. Let me just make one short comment.    Don't worry, they're OK. But remember when the Black Panthers came along and started holding guns and said political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, that was instantly threatening to the entire populace. You know, every day we post an article in our daily email advisory. I was telling you about this, Chuck. And we posted an article about, it was the New York Times, about how the Proud Boys, or what do you call it, the other one? Yeah, the oath keepers appear at these nonviolent protests around the country. They actually crossed the country to go there. And they always appear in favor of the right wing extremist group who's at the protest. And they always have guns. They have assault rifles, they have pistols, they carry all kinds of weapons, and they're dressed in camouflage outfits. And the Times wrote this up and said, you know, we should be somewhat concerned that, you know, if you carry a gun and you feel strongly or you think you feel strongly about something, the next thing that happens is you use the gun. And so I really worry about that because nobody, here's the point, is stopping them.  You can't do that. And so they do it. They do it all over the country. This is of great concern because these are institutions, you know, that they're standing in front of. Your thoughts? The system is clearly broken. I think that's what David is talking about. You can be the most knowledgeable skill for prosecutor out there. You can be Jack Smith, you can be Mary Garland, you can be Lawrence Schreib, whoever you want. But if the system's not going to perform effectively for you, you're not going to be able to bring Trump and his people to justice. And that's what we're facing right now. It's been out there since Frederick Douglass talked about it. It's still out there. If anything, it's worse than it was within recent times. You know, Frederick Douglass, I think one of the points he made was an Ann Applebaum makes the same point in the Atlantic, you know, and the Washington Post is you have to speak up. And everybody, sorry, including the lawyers, have to speak up. If they see something unfair, unjust, if they see something unlike, they have to speak up. That's one of the reasons that I'm here and that all of you guys are here. We're speaking up. We're doing what we can. Okay. But my question to Peter is, is that enough? Is that enough to respond to Ann Applebaum or Frederick Douglass? How do we stop this madness? I don't have an answer. I wish I had an answer, Jay. I wish I knew that. It's the million dollar question about how, what do we do in the face of the obstacles and the potholes and the barriers that we're describing here? I don't know how to tame the anger that's running wild in the country. I think there are programs that can do that, social programs that can get people jobs and get people education, get people healthcare and ameliorate some of the anger. But it won't, it seems to have reached a pitch. And I think it's partly the social media that is flaming this stuff along. I was in a, I had an opportunity not too long ago to meet Eugene Robinson from Washington Post. Really an interesting man. And he said, basically what we have going on in Russia and China and the US is the loss of truth, that we can't embrace truth. And he was very critical of social media and the loose standards that surround anybody who wants to say anything, as opposed to what can be done on the traditional media, where they get sued regularly, if they step over the line. So I think it was on to something about truth is under fire. And we're seeing that over and over again. And I think we have to tame the media, the social media's channels that are out there, not think tech, of course, not think tech. But let me just pick up the phone and call Elon Musk. I know I can make some progress with him. What do you think, David? I think communication is important. I think social media is wild and untamed and unaccountable. It's the great democratization of the communications industry, which I think has actually led us to a darker place. And it's sad. There have been great benefits from it, but it is sad. And there have been great detriments occasioned by that, so that people are now free to speak their minds. I mean, I saw this one cartoon where people were encouraged to speak their minds, be who they want to be. So you're talking to people of color, gays, people who are outliers, people who are marginalized, speak up, be yourself. And then there was another panel where he had all these white supremacists going, yeah, I want to stand up. I want to speak my truth. I want to go shoot some people. And so that's an unfortunate consequence of the democratization of communications. And I think that the answer is, unfortunately, better role models, communication by people who, you know, hopefully we will speak to an educated populace. But I'm not so sure, you know, education is kind of going down. So, you know, will reason triumph? Will intelligence triumph? I certainly hope so, but the jury is still out. And it is a close question. Speaking of which, I think we ought to go round the table here and make final, you know, integrated comments on where all this leads and where it goes, you know, to see what you're still out of it, and what you would tell people for posterity. Posterity now, Chuck, this is posterity we're talking about. We're talking about your children's children's children that they would look at this, you know, decades from now and say, gee, that Chuck Crumpton, he was really thoughtful and precious. He knew what was going to happen. Let's have it, Chuck. Well, I think one of the things, and David has hit on it, we need to make the information that offers the richest learning potential available, attractive, and motivating to children and youth as early and pervasively as we can. Douglas and others, Tubman, many Booker T, all should be not just available, but standard for people's awareness growing up through elementary, middle, high school, and beyond. If we can get those voices heard and listened to and appreciated, there may be an opportunity for better and more critical thinking and more demand for truth. Okay, David, your thoughts and while we're saying this and talking about education, there are thousands, if not millions of people in the South who are burning books, who are, you know, trying to control school board meetings, who are taking every step they can to undermine a liberal education, and do we have the time to fix that? Do we have the opportunity to fix that? Anyway, your last thoughts on this, David? Well, my last thoughts are, past is prologue. Frederick Douglass was fighting the fight back then against the evils that existed in the mid-1800s, and he did a tremendous job. He was a tremendous advocate, a tremendous intellect, and he had it right, which is tolerance, equality, ecumenicalism, and lifting everybody up results in a better thing. However, his message is not always heard, and there's that old saying, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And, you know, I think people just have to learn and apply the lessons of history. And the final thing I say is, I agree with what you said, Jay. Everybody has to speak up. They have to speak up.  When they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up.  And then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up. And that's the problem. And as much as I, you know, as much as I find that there are feelings of liberal democracy, I haven't found a better way that we can all work together. And so I'm still hopeful, although I have my doubts and my depressive moments, I'm still hopeful that we will muddle through. Yes, madam. Now that you ask, this is from Benjamin Franklin, right? Yes, madam. Now that you ask, we are going to have a Democratic Republic if you can keep it. It does require some effort. Peter, your last thoughts. Well, I'm in the same place as Chuck and David and you, I think. And I just go back to those same three principles that Frederick Douglass talked about in 1869.  We need a new Frederick Douglass, we need new people to put life into those statements. And I don't think we have to embellish them. I just think that they're grand and they just need to be reinvigorated by new leaders and a new generation. Now we have to take the video of this show and make people listen. I'm like, fry their eyes open. What was the name of that movie? Fry their eyes open so they have to listen. And that's the problem. And to expose them to this kind of discussion, these kinds of thoughts. Well, thank you very much. Peter Adler, David Louis, Mark Crumpton, great conversation. Thank you. And let me answer one essential question. Yes, it went further than I thought it would go. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.


Nikita Dragon has been blowing up for the past while and it seemed about time we did a video on her. Nikita, formerly known as Nick Dragon, identifies as transgender so she has done her whole transition from male to female and looking at photos she looks so legit you'd probably never even know. At the moment Nikita has 5.3 million followers on IG and 2.5 million subscribers on YouTube. She's only 23 years old so I think she'll just keep getting more popular as well. I was curious about Nikita's ethnicity because she definitely looks exotic, although she's American, her father is Vietnamese, and her mother is Mexican. Nikita is known for being a social media star, YouTuber, model, and a makeup artist and even has her own makeup line as of this past spring called Dragon Beauty. Okay, I swear everyone has a makeup line now like Jeffree Star was the OG, James Charles, Bretman, Patrick Star. I could keep going but that's like another video right there. Anyways, I would say that Nikita is definitely one of the biggest influencers right now. She's also an LGBTQ plus activist and I'm not exactly sure what the plus stands for. I forget so I'm not going to explain. Being transgender herself, Nikita has been completely open with her followers and has no shame in telling her story. She always keeps it real and tries to use her experiences as a way to educate others instead of hiding procedures she's had done. Nikita came out on our YouTube channel back in 2015 where she posted a video called I Am Transgender. From there you can see that she actually has a whole playlist of vlogs documenting her journey from male to female which was obviously a lot of work. Looking at Nikita's pics you can see she's always glammed up and looking flawless. She also seems extra confident since completing her female identity and shows off her body a lot in bikini pics. But it wasn't always like this, although Nikita has said from a young age she always knew something was off and was drawn to all things feminine. She actually didn't make her transition until pretty recently. What's going on guys and girls my name is Kara and this series we have titled Before and After. Today we're going to focus on Nikita, her look, cosmetic work she's had done and just her overall transformation because it's definitely a big one. I've done other celebrity transformation videos including ones on Gigi Gorgeous and Trisha Peitas and we'll have links to those at the end of this video. I've also been reading all your comments and I'm going to be responding to some at the end of this. As always if there's anyone else you want me to document let me know in the comments down below. Now let's get into this video. So let's start with Nikita's face. It's no doubt that men and women have different types of face structures so individuals who decide to transition usually opt to get their face changed up a little. Or a lot. For males transitioning into females they do cosmetic work on the face which they call facial feminization surgeries and Nikita made a whole video on hers. This group of cosmetic work usually involves nose jobs, forehead and hairline procedures, work on the cheeks, jaws and or chin, even lip work which is all intended to make the facial features more feminine. Nikita said that when she got her facial feminization surgeries she went in and got them all done at once and one that I think made a lot of difference in her face was her nose job. Looking at before and after Nikita's nose got much smaller, sleeker and more delicate looking. Aside from the nose job Nikita also got a brow bone shave, hairline lowering, jaw shave, muscle shave and some lipo on the face. In this vid Nikita didn't mention getting a tracheal shave, a common procedure in facial feminization surgery which is basically getting rid of the Adam's apple. Gigi Gorgeous has had this done for example like we mentioned in her before and after vid so I'm not sure if Nikita got this done as well but it doesn't look like she has any evidence of an Adam's apple these days. I also think that Nikita has great lips and they're super plump and feminine so I'm assuming she gets some type of fillers there as well but way back when she also did some makeup tutorials transforming her thin lips and making them much bigger so that could be one of her secrets too. Personally I think Nikita looks gorgeous and the changes she has made over the years for her transition are really impressive. I was definitely shocked to see her before photos. Honestly when I first saw her she reminded me of Bretman like they could be siblings or something except now she's like the girl version. Let's move on to Nikita's body. This is usually one of the most controversial topics when it comes to those who are transgender because nowadays we have the ability to have such natural looking plastic surgery done. Of course Nikita has had a boob job. In her vlog about her boob job she talked about it and said that she waited to get them until it was about a year into hormone replacement therapy. This way the surgeon would already have something to work with as the estrogen would have started to create breasts by that time. Nikita ended up getting a size that was around a C D cup and they're definitely noticeable. She has also said that this is one surgery that made her feel most like a girl after getting it done. She had some complications with this surgery which she obviously got fixed but it definitely scared her a bit. These days Nikita's body looks really feminine and she has more curves than the average woman in my opinion. Fans often ask her about her lower half like her hips and her butt because it's kind of hard to miss. From the vlogs that I've seen she hasn't really talked much about this but considering the shape of her body I would guess she either got a Brazilian butt lift or fat transfer to that part of her body or silicone injections. Speculation online has mentioned silicone injections but I'm really not sure. One thing that everyone is curious about with any transgender individual or celebrity is always if they had the surgery. You know, gender reassignment. What's going on down there? Considering that Nikita is really transparent about all her plastic surgery I think this is something she would have mentioned. She has a video called Have I Gotten The Surgery where I assumed she would set the record straight but I didn't seem to catch it. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that Nikita did go through with the full gender reassignment surgery considering tweets I've read. But if you guys know something I don't or I totally miss something super obvious then feel free to let me know in the comments. Something that made one of the biggest differences in Nikita's transformation was definitely the hormone replacement therapy. This is a long process that works to suppress certain male hormones and introduce female ones, basically estrogen. Over time it reduced things like facial hair and lots of body hair and caused breasts and hips to develop. It's also what helps make the voice more girly. I think that one of the things that makes Nikita really feminine is her voice. In a lot of her videos she truly sounds just like your average girl. It's a good thing that she's honest about her identity because she could definitely fool some people. Nikita has been really open about her hormone replacement therapy too. She's posted updates during the process about changes she's been going through and what it was like. I admire that she shares so much with her followers and subscribers because it could be really helpful to anyone going through the same thing. She has also admitted that transitioning got her a bit addicted to surgery and she kept finding more that she wanted to fix on herself. That could surely be difficult and confusing considering she's not even 25 and has so much work done already. Besides all of the surgical changes that Nikita has made to evolve over the past few years and become super feminine, her beauty look has also changed. She's always been great at makeup considering she started off doing makeup tutorials on YouTube and still does plenty of them. It's no doubt she's a pro at glamming herself up and looking flawless. Nikita has even done videos reacting to old footage of her when she was still a boy which are pretty entertaining to watch. From these videos you can really see how much Nikita has changed from before and after and her makeup skills have really improved over the years. Like I mentioned before, she also has her own makeup line, dragon beauty, so she's come a long way to say the least. Aside from Nikita's makeup always being on point, her hair is too. She doesn't hide the fact that she wears different wigs to get the look that she has though. Makes sense considering her hair changes pretty often. There's been orange, green, pink and blonde, just to name a few, so like every color in the rainbow. Nikita has even filmed tutorials on how to put on a wig properly on her channel. I swear wigs are becoming a seriously popular option these days. I see them everywhere. Like even for people who don't need to wear them. I guess the wigs are looking extra realistic these days. I mean if I could get these celeb wigs I would totally love switching up my hair all the time like that. At the end of the day, Nikita is someone who I think is a game changer. Just like other social media stars, Jeffree Star and Gigi Gorgeous for example, she's doing great things for the LGBTQ plus community. I think she might even be more open and honest than any other transgender or transitioning influencers in the industry. She's only in her early 20s so I'm sure Nikita is just getting started on her path to success. It's no doubt that she's trending and everyone wants to see her and more of her realness. Okay guys, so just like last time I'm gonna be reading out some of your comments from past fits. This one was from our updated before and after video on Bella Thorne. Nur A said, can you please do a video on Selena Gomez? So I'll definitely add Selena Gomez to my list Nord thanks for asking even though I think she's always just been naturally perfect. From a recent before and after video on Andrina Patrick from The Hills, I see Jaron Lemkin and Skittles Boys in the comments again. So hey guys and thanks as always for the support. And one from our before and after on Lindsay Lohan we did a few months back. Floyd Fletcher had this to say, she's a scuzz and a skank. Sorry I had to.  Seems like a lot of you guys really don't like the girl. Poor Lindsay. All right guys and girls that wraps up this video here on before and after. If you wanna talk more about Nikita's transformation you can hit me up on Instagram. Let me know who else you would like me to make a before and after video on and I'll see you guys in the next video. Bye.


I've got some bad news and some good news, but I actually want to start with another piece of good news. The good news is there are tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of teachers in government-run schools, tax-funded schools that are marvelous. I'm not saying equally marvelous because I believe that Sheila is more equal than many of the teachers. But there are millions, perhaps even, of marvelous people who, when they shut that door and work with their class, you know, 32 or 42 or 22 children, tend to forget the nonsense and tend to get down to real teaching of real things. So the fact that some of the children do survive the gauntlet and some of them do get through is testimony to the number of quality teachers that there are remaining in the system. So that's kind of a preamble I like to give, so that as teachers hear this on cassette tapes and they get the kind of sense, many of them, that I'm not teacher bashing at all, but I am system bashing and smashing. So that's why that little piece of good news. Now I do have some literal bad news to share with you this morning. We libertarians love to think about and talk about liberty. But words like duty, obligation, responsibility are words where we take kind of a deep breath. We think there's someone coming at us with his coercive 9mm and is going to enforce his standards of those things on us and hackles tend to rise on our necks. I was mentioned to Walter just before I came up here that I'm going to start with him and the responsibility that we talked about last night, his 3-year-old daughter has been caught in a blizzard. She's trespassing on your front porch. Do you have a responsibility to bring her inside or not? And Walter and I were discussing that perhaps you do have a responsibility, but he wouldn't want that to be legally enforceable. But I'm not necessarily talking about legality, legalisms and that sort of things, but more about responsibility. The theme of this speech today is that when parents do their duty, they can exercise their rights. When parents do their duty, they can exercise their rights. So I'm going to dwell a little bit on duty, responsibility and obligations before I get over to that favorite part for libertarians, our rights, our rights. And I believe that the stepping stone that we need in order to get to the liberty that we crave is responsibility, that we can't get there. We cannot get to liberty. We cannot get to those rights without becoming responsible and without teaching others, assisting others in becoming responsible. Now modern people seem to have abandoned, shirked their duties, their responsibilities as much as they possibly can. From that, they claim false rights. One of my, each of us has got our own hilarious examples, but a couple of years ago in Boston there was a lady, what do they call those people that lift weights, weight lifters. Right here on the tip of my brain almost, right, what's left? Lady weight lifter, who was weight lifting in a men's government run, PACS funded gym. And men's gym. And she was evicted. And she sued for her constitutional rights to lift weights. That were, she was so strong they didn't have enough weights in the ladies' gym, so she went into the men's gym to lift weights. And she was suing for her constitutional rights to lift weights. Yeah, chuckle chuckle. We've lost our claim on real rights, many of us, because we have abandoned to the state the responsibility for the education of our children. I take issue with my friends on the conservative side who are preaching and prattling about parental rights, parents' rights. The parents' rights initiative and amendment, et cetera, et cetera. And I say it's the conservative version of the welfare hissy fit of welfare rights. Because essentially what our conservative friends are saying is, other people should pay for my children's education, I get to decide what it is. This is nothing more than a false right, a fake right. How would you say it here in French, you've got the French, far, far rights or something like that? Faux, foie, foie, foie. Thank you. Yes, I'm equally unknowledgeable of French. These abandoning or shirking of parental responsibilities to educate their children, particularly the financial responsibility, leads to the weakening of the bonds of the family and the strengthening of the bonds to the government. I give three quick examples and I'm going to call on Karen to give me sort of the decade here. And I meant to do this before I got up here. I was so impressed. It's Karen Sullick, right? I was so impressed with what she said yesterday. I was just delighted. I was ecstatic listening to her too. Hmm, two for two on Canadian women. Anyway. I'm going to give three quick examples in the 1840s, and I borrowed this from Bob Anderson. In the 1840s, the centralizers, command-oriented folks, the Horace Manns in America, came to the parents and said, you know what? You're no longer responsible for paying for your children's education. Society is, your neighbors are responsible, and we're going to enforce that through taxation. And a typical parent said, oh, hey, it's a pretty good idea, and I can afford that second mule. We could be a two-mule family if I don't have to pay all that tuition. They called rate bills in those days. In the 1870, Bismarck came to the children and he said, you know, you children shouldn't have to pay to take care of your aging parents. Why, they should look to Berlin. They should look to the government for that. Think of a log being split. Think of these wedges coming between parent and child. Americans thought that was such a splendid idea. They barged into that in the 1930s with the Social Security. And then here in Canada, and in other countries, some to the south of you, mothers are no longer responsible for treating the fathers of their children well enough to keep them, because you all have, what do you call it, mothers' allowance, right? Kick him out. A third wedge, like into a log, splitting the family between child and parent, between parent and child, between mother and father. You will never get a weak government until you have strong families. And if we continue to weaken the family, we will inadvertently be strengthening the government. Now government involvement in schooling, and this goes whether you're at the local or at the national level, undermines parents in three ways. Two I believe are actually fatal, and the third is just a heck of a problem. The three ways that government involvement in schooling undermines parents is first, it undermines their responsibility by saying you are not financially responsible for the education of your children, which of course is part and parcel of all tax-funded vouchers, all tax-funded charter schools. Those are mere exacerbations of the problem. By saying you are not responsible for the education of your children's society is, they undermine that parental responsibility. Let's go back to the beginning of born life.  In most parts of the planet, that child needs to be fairly quickly protected from the elements. I found out, I never knew this when I had four children, what a receiving blanket was. Now that I've got four grandchildren, now I ask questions about words.  And that is the blanket that receives the baby. It's the first blanket that all you moms knew that. Didn't you look at the smiles, you know, the moms are having this little glow and thinking of a receiving blanket, right? Imagine a couple so strange by our standards, so perverse, so enamored with externalities that they say, you know what, society benefits if my child doesn't freeze to death. Therefore, society should pay for the receiving blanket. We, of course, will choose, will attempt to choose the quality and the color, etc. But it turns out that society, now that it's paying for the receiving blankets out of Ottawa, or Washington, D.C., or Canberra, or wherever, right? Since we now have a right to receiving blankets at our neighbor's expense, guess who's going to decide the quality of that? And if parents expect the government to pay for the receiving blanket, they can equally say, well, you know what, if the child doesn't eat at harm's society, therefore society should pay for all the child's food. If he's not clothed, I mean, how many of us want the children running around naked? But maybe I shouldn't ask for a show of hands here. But the society should pay. Education, medication, vacation.  If the world owes you a living, well, I work for it, right? In other words, if we continue on this track, and this is not anything new to the libertarians, but if we continue on this track, we end up with everybody being the parasite, trying to sponge off of, you know, we can't find John Galt and get our mitts on him so that we can tax him anymore. He escaped somehow. The producers are gone. And it begins with, at least to the best of my ability to seek it out in American society, it begins in the 1830s and 1840s. It's one of the few times when we jumped ahead of the Swedes and Brits in the welfare entitlement attitude and did it in the 1840s and had the government take over the schools. By the way, I noticed that George Smith is here in the audience and I want to give public credit to him and his tape and his speech. Public schools are a success, at least if you measure them by their own goals. I want to give public recognition to George Smith to the guy that lit the original match inside of me. I was listening to him on cassette tape. I've listened to that tape eight, nine times, and I love it. And let's hear a round of applause for George Smith. But we're beginning that march of a thousand steps to total dependency with saying that since education is benefit to society, therefore society should pay for it. I want to toy with this responsibility issue for a few seconds and come at it obliquely through names. I think names are kind of important for things. And in the States, I don't know what you all call them in your countries. I know that the English, of course, used the word public school differently than the Americans do. But in America, we defer to them as private schools and public schools. And by the way, Sheila, the inability of people to use English correctly has become a great bother to I. I agree with you on me. No, I can't ever say me. I agree with you on this, become a brother to I also. We've used the terms now for perhaps a little over a century of public schools and private schools. That is sort of a snapshot of the deed. Who owns them? Are they owned by the government or are they owned by the some private entity, church, for-profit company, whatever, individual or state operation? Now, what if we had, rather than looking at that snapshot of the deed, what if we had looked at the flow of funds? What if from the beginning we had referred to schools as parent financed and tax financed? Now we're looking at, instead of the balance sheet, we're looking at the income statement of the cash flow for the chartered accountants among us. And we're looking at the money, the source of funds, the flow of it, rather than the ownership. What if for a hundred years we'd referred to tax-funded schools and parent-funded schools? Or maybe we even labeled them a little bit more accurately, in a sense. We always referred to them as voluntarily financed schools and coercion financed schools. What was that? What if those have been our names? And then somebody came up with this great idea, after a hundred years, you know, the parent-financed schools seem to be doing better than the tax-financed schools. I got an idea. Let's get tax-financing to go to the parent-financed schools. You'd all look at me as if I were daft. Because you would have built into the names some sort of essence as to what is special or different, unique about that school. You would have built your understanding into the name. So once again, with all respect and deference to Milton Friedman and other greats in the Liberty Movement, somehow you didn't even claim to be infallible. And I think that he might be just a little off on the idea of using tax-financing to finance parent-financed schools. Let's see if we can get coercively financed money into voluntarily financed schools and see if we can help them that way. I say it is time for mental floss. Sheila Morrison mentioned people getting second mortgages to put their children in her school. Barbara Salt during the question period mentioned 85% of the school children in Haiti that are in school, which of course is not, well, that go to the private schools that are parent-financed in the poorest country in the world. Parents manage to find the dollars to do that. Harry Brown in his book, What's Wrong with Government? Why government doesn't, what does, quick, embarrass me here. I mean, let me out of this embarrassment. Why government doesn't work no more and probably never did. Okay, don't work no more. Never did. It points out that the cost of schooling has gone up by 21 times when adjusted for inflation in the United States since the turn of the century to 1995. In other words, the people of the turn of the century said, if we had a little bit more money, maybe twice as much, we could do a better job. So they doubled it, right? And by 1920 they had twice as much money. You know what, if we had more money, we could do a better job. We could double it again. Yeah, we could double that. Okay, let's go to, so by 1960, 48, actually, you got twice as much money again. So you know what, if we could just have a little bit more money, we could do a better job. So what if we doubled it again? Okay, that'd be good. We could double it by 1970. And I say, you know, if we had a bit more money, we could do a better job. Double it again, right? By 1990. Now it's at 21 times its original size. Are they doing that much better a job of teaching children to read, write, and cipher than they were 100 years ago? And by the way, you can even predict what the next doubling is going to do because you can go find school districts that are spending $11,000, $12,000 per year double what the current American average is $6,000 per year. You can find them, government schools spending $11,000, $12,000 a year. Are you doing a better job? Well, one can't see much evidence of that. So I don't know how many more doublings will please them, but I have my doubts. But what a parent pays for something, they make decisions. They are involved. They decide. You buy a pizza for your family, you decide what's on it. No ifs, ands, or buts. You decide, you pay for education. You decide what's in it. I tell the Americans all the time that when the government removed Protestant prayer from the schools in the 1960s, that didn't change a whole lot. They always say, what do you mean Protestant prayer? I say, well, do they take the Hail Marys out of the schools? Public schools in America, government schools? Is Marshall Fritz about to take a $1,000 bill out of this pocket and show it to you all? Why not? Don't have one in there. Otherwise I probably would. Hey, look what I got. Jim Johnson liked my speech so much. Look what he slipped me, right? Oh, I wouldn't embarrass you in public, I'd say. A generous and wonderful person in the front row. We'd like to be matched by somebody in the next row, but anyway. They didn't pull Hail Marys out of the public schools in America because they weren't there. Then the next question is, well, did they take them out of the Catholic schools? Huh? I don't know how many have been hanging around Catholic schools in America recently, but from what I can tell, they didn't take them out. You pay for it. You're responsible. You're involved. You're deciding what's on that pizza. You're deciding what's on that phonics plate. And the teachers cry for parental responsibility and involvement. And there's a way to get it. Good news, bad news, teacher. Good news is you can have it. Let the parents pay. The bad news is they might not pay you. So one, government involvement, and this is the worst I believe, undermines parental responsibility by encouraging, enabling and encouraging the parent to shirk the responsibility for their children to other people, to their neighbors. And that shirking of responsibility, if it begins there, there's a continuum to the level of irresponsible parenting that we seem to be striving for and not just in the United States. Secondly, governments invariably undermine parental authority. Each of you in this audience has a moral code. And I suspect there are some common items on that moral code, that laundry list that you have of do's and do not's, that I have and that everybody else in the room has. One, for instance, is a respect for the private property of other people. You tried to transmit this to your children to the best of your ability. On some other items in the, you know, I mean, in the ten commandments, I suspect all of us here are like three, and don't steal, don't lie, and don't kill. There's some that may like nine, right? You remember when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he says, well, I got good news and bad news. And all the Hebrews said, oh, okay, well, what's the goodness? Because I got it down to ten commandments. But the bad news is adultery is still in there. Now each of us has some sort of a moral code. We have some sort of a source of that moral code. It may be the Koran, and it came from Allah. It may be the Book of Mormon, and it came from the golden tablets from Moroni. It may be from natural law, natural rights. We may have, some people believe we've evolved a moral code. So some have a theistic, and some have a non-theistic explanation for the existence of a moral code. But I suspect that virtually everyone in this room has one. And I suspect you're trying to transmit to your children.  Would you please do something about it? Oh, no, we're going to let Johnny decide on the theft issue for himself. Right, we wouldn't want to impose our old-fashioned do not steal standards on him. So he, you know, we think it's wonderful that he plays with your child. And later, maybe life will teach him some lessons in his 20s, 30s, or 40s. And then he'll make those decisions for himself. Hogwash. I don't think there's a libertarian on the planet that isn't imparting slash imposing his moral code, respect for private property being certainly one of the first several commandments on his children. And you don't like to be undermined. It's not good to be undermined. I'll tell you a personal story.  One of our close relatives used the N-word, a great deal, and was teaching the N-word to our two-year-old, three-year-old son in some little song. And I said to this relative that my wife, Joan, and I are not trying to avoid that, to minimize the lesson that racism thing. And this relative was, you know, insistent that it was his or her responsibility if we weren't going to do the job to teach our nice white children the hierarchy of races that he or she was going to do it for us. At which time I reminded this person that IBM stands for I've been moved. And it'd be fairly easy for me to move to Boston or Maine from California and that he or she might get much less access to his or her great-grandchildren or nieces or nephews. I don't want to be too clear here on who I'm hitting. He didn't like being undermined by a relative. And it would have been harmful to our children to try to teach them two different moral codes by two different people who love the children greatly. If it's not just confusing to a child, but for a child to get one moral code from one set of modern-term caregivers and then a different moral code from a different group of caregivers, children decide what is truth, what is right, what is wrong. Little kids, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years old, on who loves me, who takes care of me, what do they say? That doesn't mean that they always live up to the truth and do the right. But that's how they figure it out. When you put them into a situation where one group, the parents perhaps say A, and another group says not A.  The child is now hearing A equals not A, and there's no conflict there. What happens to a five, six, seven, eight, nine-year-old child who's taught that? Spiritual philitimide, some sort of stress on the building of character. You end up graduating a person who either believes that right and wrong do not even exist, or that is unknowable. And if you can add to that self-esteem technique-y stuff, so you can have an inflated self-esteem, then what you have is a graduate who feels good about himself while doing evil. The schools, as they undermine parents, have become factories for the production of sociopaths. If I were in a Catholic country, I'd be wiggling and waving my finger at the Catholics for undermining the children of other people. If I were in an atheist country, such as the Soviet Union, I'd be wagging my finger at the Marxists for undermining the children of Muslims and Christians. If I were in a, quote, post-Christian country of relativists, deconstructionists, postmodernists, modernists who are teaching children that there is no such thing as absolute truth, all truth is relative, I'd be wagging my fingers at them, and I am. Another course in America, man, a course of study, used to teach that if you live far enough north, long enough, it's all right to murder your grandmother. Now, you just can't go, you know, to the North Pole for a week and put Granny out on a nice flow. That's not nice, right? And if you live far enough south where it's warm, that's not nice either. That's murder. But you see, if you're an Eskimo and Granny can't chew the walrus hide anymore and she's no longer useful, what that society does is, according to this, Jeremy Brunner and the man a course of study, is put the child, put the Granny outside and let her freeze or starve to death. And that's okay for them. You see, murder is dependent upon latitude and length of stay. That's the real message of man, of course, of study, of that little dollop of deep multiculturalism. Values, clarification, so popular in the 70s and 80s in the America. How do you know what's right and wrong?  How do you know North from South? I don't know. I guess you sort of look inside. What do you feel about North? If you're uncertain how you feel about what's right and wrong, then you check with other children. If you're a 14-year-old, you're supposed to ask other children in your peers, well, what if I want to check with my mom or dad? No, no. Values, clarification. The foot soldiers of relativism. Any parent, be it Pagan, who believes in truth, Monotheist, who believes in truth, Atheist, who believes in truth, is being undermined by a system that, in effect, is teaching relativism. And no, there is no course relativism 1A. Please answer the even-numbered questions. Don't worry, the answers don't count. So there is no course in relativism. But you teach what you are. A system that denies the existence of a North star of any sort of moral code ends up teaching relativism. It must. So one, responsibility is undermined by the schools being paid for by the neighbors through the force of taxation. Two, your authority as a parent, be you Monotheist, Atheist, Pantheist, or Pagan.  You may get it through, you may not. And three, finances. Your finances are being drained to pay for this monstrous system. And they will double it again, and double it again. Now, how do we get out of this thing, this speech, and get to a question-and-answer period, get up the mountain, get some lunch, do some other things that we want to get on with our lives? Well, that's why I'm on the last page. The answer, my friends, and given the nickname separation of school and state, and it's an American view, you might, if you should start such an organization in your own country, want to use some different name because you do not have probably that mantra almost of the separation of church and state that Americans have. So I'm playing off of that American sense. And this is a U.S. organization we accept on our proclam- we invite, encourage on our proclamation the signature of people from all over the planet because they too can proclaim that they want to see the government out of schooling. May I ask for a show of hands? How many here have had the opportunity in person or over the Internet to sign the proclamation for the separation of school and state? May I see a show of hands? Ho-hey! Well, there's a few left, right? And if you're feeling left out right now, run our way to 25 million signatures and you have the honor of being in the first million if you sign today. In fact, you have the honor of being in the first 2,500. But... Also, Walter, if you and your crew will hand this out, if you'd like to read more about the separation of school and state, this is normally $10 American money.  I don't have enough to everybody, so I can't give them away, but you're getting basically a 70-something percent discount over the regular price, and they're being passed out now so that you can glance at it and decide if you would like to have it. But it's titled No More Reform. We don't need its school reform. We need its replacement, and it is the strategy document for the separation of school and state. Anyway, it does include two. I've finally gone public with Milton Friedman's endorsement of me, which is... Well, on balance, Marshall does more good than harm. So, Sheila talked about parents who were downsizing their lifestyle in order to pay for their children's education. If you're going to teach responsibility to your own children, you need to be responsible yourself. You cannot teach responsibility not as I do. If you're going to teach responsibility to your neighbor, you must do that by being responsible for yourself and your children. And if you are currently enjoying your BMW and your luxury vacations and using the state to pay for your children's education, you have no chance of teaching your neighbor anything but what you are, a hypocrite. That's the bad news. You teach what you are. If you expect responsibility from your neighbors, you must be responsible yourself. The late Carl Hess said that so gently, so sweetly, I should be so kind. It's easy to sign the proclamation. I encourage you to do it. I think it was Chesterton who said, hypocrisy is that honor that evil pays to good. So it's better to sign the proclamation and keep your child in a government school and be a hypocrite than not even sign the proclamation. But figure out how you can home school your child, private school your child, teach your child to be a self-teacher and auto-didact. Help your children with their children. That's the answer. It begins with you. St. John Lennon said, think globally, act. I guess in your own family. We've got just a few seconds left for questions. And I would love to have any number of people come up after this session on the way and we talk about when the endurance caucus can meet. As many of you know, it's a tradition after my speeches for me to gather around people and ask them to critique the presentation. Tell me what they like and what they didn't like. And we'll be doing that sometime between now and 7 a.m. tomorrow morning when I leave. So if you would like to be part of that critiquing caucus, please join me. But ladies and gentlemen, liberty is possible, but we have to teach responsibility and to teach responsibility we have to be responsible. Thank you very much for your kind attention.


So when the geeks mr. V here welcome to another video guys. So into this video we are gonna take a look at Good RX. So this is an IPO that's supposed to go out of the thing on the 23rd of September and Yeah, sorry, it's gonna want to take a look at them and see What this is maybe if it's a buy or maybe it's a wait and see what happens after the IPO goes live Under on the NASDAQ so Before we get started guys, if you're new to the channel, we talk about how to earn money How to save money how to invest and build worth so if there's something that interests you go ahead and hit that Subscribe button any notification belt so you don't miss out on new content. So this is as you can see here This is a company that really Thrives in helping people Their health care issues. So when I say health care issues, I'm talking about more so from a health Insurance and prescription perspective. So they provide coupons that you can actually use to really assist you in Reducing your health care costs. So now if you go to the website, you can search for coupons And you can see here. It says you can save up to about 80 percent of you know your prescription Of your prescription be using your coupons and so this is how it's work. It is whole thing works. So go to the website You find your freak coupon and again the one thing that the says here is that you can use it It works virtually every Every where in the US. So which is good because you have pharmacies across the countries and if you get Sick somewhere across the country, you don't have to wait to go back to your local pharmacy You can go to any pharmacy and just present your coupon and see able to pick up your prescription, which is great. So Yeah, and this company, I mean if feature you've been featured in like if you can see here Bloomberg business inside in CNBC all these other places. So they have some sort of a good reputation So again stuff that people are saying here. So let's take a look at ticket symbol. So again based on No, we board is IPO is going out tomorrow ticket symbol is GDRX So if you can you can type that in your search And we both you can definitely see GDRX and then you can just book market so that as soon as it starts trading You can definitely Buy it if you if you're interested in getting this particular IPO so Yeah, so that's basically what we want to look there and then so I want to take a look here real quick at their sec filing that kind of went out to sort In sorry, this is the first thing that when I look at it. Let's see a scroll back up here at the top All right. So here we are So right now I Don't see any particular prize for their For the shares, let me see. Maybe it's here Nothing so there's no listed price just yet for for the shares So this is interesting because I've actually seen a few companies go public now that they don't really want to Propose an actual price per share So this is crazy, so they I mean you're allowing the market to determine what that price is gonna be so It's a risk, but hey at the same time if people love your product, they're gonna go for it So Just kind of look at so this is one of the things that I looked at that I thought was interesting So it talks about like the number one That's most downloaded medical app. That's really really good. I mean if you can be number one in the medical space That's huge because not only are you being used by? You know younger people you've been used by older people I mean pretty much across the spectrum there you're being used So that's something that it really interests me and the next thing that I looked at to here was that they have 4.9 million monthly active consumers. That is huge To get 4.9 million active consumers. That is not even Anything in terms of the number of people so just imagine that if more people This is the market cap was let's say 100% and they can only get about 25% of that market cap They would be sitting pretty good and then the other thing to mention here is 80% are repeat activities So people use their their their you know your the app Maybe find coupons and go buy medications and get prescriptions and then they come back, which is great So again here they're talking about heart of safe To was that 20 billion plus for consumers, which is good. So Bottom line is that now that the business model is something that Makes sense. I like the fact that it doesn't have a ton of overhead Basically, you're producing coupons and everything my only Fear here is what stops another company from coming up with the same thing kids. What do you have here that you can say it's Strictly yours the data underneath everything I mean he granted the customers that you have the reputation that you have missed a lot, but Competition wise what stops another company from from scooping in and really taking a bite at your apple in per se so that's my only fear but Based on what I've reached just can Write so far in being able to look at Some of the things that people are talking about. I think the company has no a space In healthcare space because people want to save money Healthcare is not cheap. It's pretty expensive. So from doctor visits to, you know Medications and prescriptions and so you find every way that you can possibly can to save If saving on prescription is one of them like I said here You're saving about 80% off of your prescription. Then I mean by all means do it so I think that's why people are really looking at it and Just being interested in this in this in this particular Stack so I think it's a great opportunity And again, these guys are really looking at raising about 900 million dollars For you know, these IPO who knows if they can you can hit that number? But it's it's a it's a good thing for them if they can if they can get to that point so So these break it like I said good RX Has developed an online consumer platform that really aggregates Pricing for prescription drugs from sources I can't just spending the healthcare industry. So if you can again Get into the healthcare space and have that reputation where people can trust you they can help them save On the prescription costs. You are in business. So So in this case, I'm gonna use it to get somebody here. So GD RX You know is growing revenue and net profit Impressively so far as you can see here on this on this balance sheet here So they for the most part they're operating in the gap They have like free cash that is just there for them to use to kind of expand So all in all again in my personal take. This is a company that has Tremendous amount of potential. So right now majority of their revenue comes from Advertising and they are looking for ways to actually You know diversify their revenue if they can do that. I think they'll be in good shape and just continue to grow So again, there's IPO. I think to start with I don't know how it's gonna come out of the gate How it's gonna behave but my personal Observation here is that I'm gonna keep a close eye Watch what happens as soon as it gets out of the gate. I don't intend to buy and hold long term I intend to just watch and see if I can day trade it. I would definitely jump in and day trade it And then wait for some sort of a pullback because that's what usually happens with a lot of these IPOs They come out of the gate and just spike and then Next thing, you know, they hit some some sort of resistance and then start pulling back So I'm gonna trade it day trade it and then wait for that pull back and then see Maybe if I can pick up a few shares for holding long term because Again, this is an up-and-coming company So I want to see where they go again if they can find ways to diversify their Their revenue source that would be great a way just from doing advertising. So That's it for this video I think I'm really excited again just to kind of see where this goes So let me in the conversation. What do you think about this particular company? Do you have you use them again? One of my rules of investing is invest in something that you know Have you used this company for your prescription if you use them to save money? Let me know the comment section and if not, are you gonna be buying this this particular IPO? Or what's your take on it again? Let me know in the comment section if you're new to the channel We talk about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth So if that's something that interests you again, don't forget to hit that subscribe button and the notification Bell to you don't miss out on your content And if you are just looking to get started with investing Weibo is currently doing a promotion where you get a free stock for signing up and depositing a hundred dollars And the free stock is somewhere between two fifty and Sixteen hundred dollars. So definitely check the links in the description for that and as always guys Stay motivated


Open now. Purging mage. I reach. Keeps. In this time. Up. I hit him. Pidge, right? Second. I give in. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. Keeps. I got in. I know he's. He's. Nice, Nice, Nice! Okay. Nice. I'll keeps. I get them. Nice. Do i get them? No... Okay. The powers haven't got them? Keeps. I get them. I set up life хотел and the Torah fought. Charity.  Okay I'm not playing steel. I'm playing two disvolves. No, I'm playing steel.  I drink it Nice, nice, nice. Good I stun trap right now, okay? My pet no, in ring, I mean Is this blue ball? No. Can you mean? It's for Hydra. It's everything Okay fine Okay, okay, not PS, not PS Blind I'm gonna stun trap right now, okay? Stun Yeah, I free the meal Okay, drink it Sack Kick ship Nice, I can death next. I'm gonna steal next Is this blue? We kill him? I'm gonna sheet mage, okay? On next go Okay, okay, okay. Entrapment, entrapment, entrapment She's blind, maybe. She's blind, maybe P.S. Cassie Okay, okay Maybe it's bad I'm gonna SPM I'm not SPM You ready to ship mage? Yeah, go now He's maybe gonna see it Everybody kick me, right? Okay, it's fine Uh, sheet me Use, uh, he fake me, mild Nice, nice, nice One Second Can he meet me? Not on me, not on me. It's cheap, it's cheap He's getting it I think it Okay, okay, okay I think I have three people I'm fine You ready to win? I'm gonna stun trap right now Don't you ready to win?    Do it, do it Watch panic Mange fit C S C S Wait C S C S Yeah, I have no trinket for 40 Mage is gonna have combust soon He's found a lot back C S P S I'm in silence, she's for me Mange bought Tony you Raptor Rapolin Mange no block, look at mage Palo I stomp poly, okay My game's mage C S me Dispelling shields Let's push mage, okay Purge mage, mage is clean No shields for a bit I'm making a roll I can just trap it now I can just trap it now I trap After bop, I trap Bosh now Nice Just on me I can get the trinket Nice, it's in You're okay This was not combust, okay It's combust What's it? It's combust, it's combust too But no, it's not combust Fuck's sake Mange is good on trapeze now, okay Trapeze One game One games, he's gonna die Kick What's up Stun What's up I'm taking it I'm taking it What's up, pretty soft now What's up What's up I'm careful, didn't pre-dome, trinket down Okay, good I have your mark I'm taking it Go Dome, push Stun me, careful Healing Trinket, Trinket Miss-kick Next door, it's in I'm pushing I'm pushing Wait for Dome Wait for Dome as well Squaddie I'm stunned I need stun I don't have stun You have I don't have stun, Tony It's karma, just wait I have stun trap in 5 seconds Miss-kick We need to go right now Kill me Blinded Bomb 3DK She's this Can I CC? MC Sorry TSU He's gonna fire me I'm gonna stun him My game's won One shot him bro, see you later I'm going back What's up Nice I stunned I need trap I need DK MC, sham Karma I'm gonna grapple after MC Grapple I'm blind I'm blind I'm blind Trinket Better I can chip shot I'm gonna ram you for here as well I can trap, nice I'm fine Purging monk MC, DK I'm looking from zone It's mine I'm going to sum I sum up and kill you, you have trap bottom Okay, don't You see this, I go away Summon DB means to Sheep means to To mage I need trap I'm gonna stun off, okay?


Biden is a bigger danger to U.S. democracy than Trump, Robert Kennedy Jr. President Joe Biden could be a bigger danger to U.S. democracy than former president and presumptive 2024 election rival Donald Trump. Another presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said, Biden is the first president in U.S. history to mobilize federal agencies to silence his political opponents the politicians stated. Speaking on CNN, Kennedy Jr. pointed to his being blocked on various social media platforms during Biden's term in office and branded this as an effort to censor political speech that violated the First Amendment of America's Constitution. He also attributed the censorship to pressure from the White House. Kennedy stated that he still views Biden as a bigger danger even though Trump played a role in the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol. The question was, who is a worse threat to democracy? And what I would say is, I'm not going to answer the question but I can argue that President Biden is because of the First Amendment, Erin is the most important. The candidate told presenter Erin Burnett, I can make the argument that President Biden is the much worse threat to democracy and the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech so to censor his opponent. The politicians Instagram page was suspended in 2021 over what its parent company Metta described as repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines. The account was reinstated in 2022 shortly after Kennedy announced his election campaign. Kennedy, 70, is the son of former U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy and the nephew of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, each of whom were assassinated during the 1960s.