No Outrage Politics with Bud Cornwell

[0:03] It isn’t every day that a conservative wants to be a guest on a secular left podcast, but it happened. I talked to a conservative podcast host about topics we will never agree on, and there was no name calling. We slowly drive past the scene of this accident.

[0:27] I’m Doug Berger, and this is secular left.

[0:32] Music.

[0:45] My guest today is Budd Cornwell. He’s a retired gunnery sergeant with the United States Marine Corps. He is host of his own podcast The Patriot Cause. And he’s been doing that podcast for about three years. And you’re probably going to find out pretty quickly that we don’t see eye to eye on many things. And basically the whole point of this episode is to actually talk to somebody who does not agree with everything that I that I say. And thank you for being with us today, Budd. Thank you very much, Doug. I absolutely appreciate it. And what part of the country do you live in? I live in Alabama. Believe it or not, I’m not from Alabama. I moved here about three years ago. But of course, being in the Marine Corps, I’ve actually moved 28 different times in my life. So it’s kind of I don’t really know where home is, if you know what I mean.

[1:43] And as I said, that you host The Patriot Cause. Could you tell us a little bit about that podcast? Oh, absolutely.

[1:54] I started this podcast on my daughter my daughter’s birthday in August of 2020. And the reason I started it is I didn’t I feel that there isn’t enough people. That understand our Constitution, understand how our our government and our country was actually created. And it’s it’s it’s not uncommon for that because we are living in this what we consider a modern type world. And even almost 300 years ago, the world was completely different. It was still not what you would consider a developed society. They were coming from a a country with a king and tyranny and and wanted to just wanted to create a country that had a free where you have freedom as much as possible. So so my goal is really to. And what I do is I try to do research on specifically issues that are associated with the Constitution, not necessarily.

[3:13] For instance, I don’t do like BLM or those kind of discussions because they’re it’s I mean, it’s in a way, it’s part of the Constitution because you’ve got the freedom to to speak and do the things. But what I’m talking about is how the laws.

[3:33] The Supreme Court decisions, all of that, how does that coincide with the way the country is supposed to be run with the Constitution? So it’s really more it’s really about the Constitution and people having discussion on that. Okay. And in this particular podcast set, your podcast is from a secular and left perspective. What led you to want to be a guest on this podcast? Good question, Doug.

[4:00] Before we started this podcast we’re talking about I don’t believe that. We we as a nation, whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, that we are having discussion. I think we’re being divided to an extreme to where we’re looking at each other. Really in a certain way of being, well, you’re not people anymore or you’re not human anymore, or you’re, it’s just getting to the point where people are disagreeing so aggressively that we can’t even have discussions about how to coincide together. And that’s something I wanted to I always wanted to be able to do, is to to try to talk some logical just discussion, not get heated and call people names and all that stuff. I think that just that waters down the ability for people to have a good discussion. And you got to respect everybody’s opinion. Everybody has an opinion and they shouldn’t have an opinion. But what we’re doing on both sides of the fence here is we’re so convinced that the one side or the other is so, so wrong that we don’t even want to engage in conversation. So I’m glad that I’m on this show for you.

[5:28] Okay. And again, I appreciate that you took the time to be with us today. Most people would not do that. So I do appreciate it. Absolutely. I have listened to a few of the episodes of The Patriot Cause and you talk a lot about communism. That’s the main the main topic that you talk about. Can you briefly explain what you mean by communism? Absolutely.

[5:55] Obviously, communism compared to capitalism and free markets and stuff is just it’s a political social system that different countries use and.

[6:11] The rise of communism, specifically in the mid to late 1800s is kind of when all of that started to develop. It developed through what they would call the Enlightenment. The professors and psychologists and theologians, etc., creating this enlightenment science and so forth. So communism kind of sparked through that ideology. But I think the reason I talk about it is because the values are how communism is supposed to work. Supposed to would actually be a good thing. It would be. But throughout the years and all the different countries that have enveloped that particular ideology in my mind has turned into just exactly the opposite of what America became. To get away from that kingdom type bureaucracy run world that the Communists are or what they’re doing. And so many people don’t really know what communism is today. What’s going on today?

[7:32] You go back to the the concept of communism when it was developed through Marxists and so forth, you would think that, wow, this is this is good. This is something that should happen. But I don’t think that what we would call communism today is not really what it was supposed to be. So I use that as as talking points to, again, help explain the difference between communism, socialism and capitalism and constitution and so forth.

[8:10] And this week, as we’re recording this episode, the US House of Representatives, led by the Republican Party, currently from the result of the last election, introduced and passed a resolution that condemns socialism. Do you agree with that resolution? And what is the connection of socialism and communism? In your view? Yeah. I mean, that’s that’s a good question.

[8:40] This is what I’m hoping socialism is. If it is, I think we all can agree to it. You know, the fact that the House is jumping to this where you can’t have socialism, communism is a whole different ballgame. Socialism can lead to communism, but socialism doesn’t have to lead to communism. You look at Switzerland and countries like that, the Netherlands, they have what you would consider socialism, and I think we all would consider socialist where, the government, if led properly, can provide social programs that can help our citizens of each country. I mean, the word socialism or social is in Social Security. And it is it’s a a benefit that you earned, but it’s controlled through a socialism process, through a government socialism process. So to me, what socialism is or should be is the ability for a country, and their people to come together to be able to provide the necessary, necessary things, like health care and those kind of things. But.

[10:03] You don’t want to go to where the government runs everything, runs your business, runs your life. That’s not so to me, that’s not socialism. That’s when you start getting into communism.

[10:15] Right? Well, I disagree with I do disagree with them passing that. Okay. Okay. That’s good to know. The reason why I’m asking you that is because there was an episode where you were talking about the government helping people in times of need, particularly during the Great Depression. I, I took it from listening to your episode that you thought it was a bad idea to have the Works Progress Administration. During the Depression. And of course, you made the inference that. Government giving people jobs would make them dependent on the government and the government would control them. And in my kind of getting to how you. Phrase that or talked about that.

[11:09] No, you’re getting it’s exactly the same way. What I believe is this what happened with the thirties when they had the stock market crash and those kind of things. When Roosevelt decided to to increase the government and responsibility and start building all this, the intent of what he was talking about and what he was doing is a good intent. Now, what I mean by that is. Once the country got back on its feet. Right then what should have happened was then Roosevelt and whoever following him should have went back and started reducing the government and, people going back into the capital workforce and so forth. Now, I know we didn’t discuss it before or talking about the introduction, but when I retired from the Marine Corps, I went back in the government. So I was a government employee for another ten, 12 years. And then I retired completely from from the government. And watching the just constant growth program after program after program, I’m just going it’s just so the government is just so big.

[12:25] And now it would be great if it was a good government, if it was the way it’s supposed to be. So in my mind, I’m not saying the government shouldn’t provide jobs, but the governments, the federal government should be providing jobs, in organizations that are in accordance with the Constitution and what what the federal government’s responsibility is. And that’s where again, that’s where a lot of times we draw the line between each other is do we have a full blown government, takes care of pretty much everything, or do they fall into a structured like the Constitution says, this is what you’re supposed to be responsible for. Let the states take care of the rest. So by way of example, do you or do you have an example of what you would think would be a good use of government? Funds to create jobs. Well the I said the medical field and and.

[13:29] The for instance, like a lot of people have a hard time with, for instance, the national parks and stuff like that. That, in my mind is one of the best things that the government has ever done, you know, because if if we didn’t do that, a lot of those national parks that should be national parks to everybody would be cities in it or whatever. So that’s a that’s a good example. Oh, a bad example to me as far as government wise, is funding all of this ridiculous testing and.

[14:13] Projects of studying the frogs and an Amazon or whatever those kind of things. If we were not in a massive deficit and stuff like that, maybe we could justify which we did in the past. But, you know, we’re spending a whole lot of government money outside of our country and we’re giving a whole bunch of it away to other countries. And I think we’ve got to come back to focusing on if we’re going to use government funding and present government jobs, then we need to work on this here with people in the United States.

[14:54] Yeah. I think though, that a lot of times people misunderstand, government programs like studying frogs or other scientific, thing, things that the government funds, because a lot of times when those projects are done, we come to a better understanding of our world and it may lead to further discoveries. Right. And so I think we can progress and still and still do that. I know we just recently in the budget that just got passed at the end of last year, we’re spending at least 800 billion, $800 billion on the military. The United States has the largest military in the world, even larger than China. China may have more soldiers, but they don’t have the largest military organized military. Now, somebody from my perspective is I would rather spend government money on studying frogs than having to try to have the world’s largest military.

[16:04] Because I don’t because I think the last time I checked, it was ten times as large as the next largest one. I think that the military could do some use for some budget cuts, in my opinion. Right. Well, first off, it is not ten times larger and I can give you numbers for that, but that’s okay. I understand and I absolutely understand your point.

[16:31] Here’s here’s what I wish. Really, I do. I wish the world and everybody in it was good. I really do. I mean I mean that from the bottom of my heart. But the world is not good and the people in it are not good. And the governments are not good. And there’s evil across the globe, wherever it is. When that gets solved, then I’ll totally agree with you. As far as reducing the military and the budget and all that, because unfortunately to have peace in your country, you have to do that through strength, through the fact of just just how the politics work in the world. And yeah.

[17:12] If we were at a point and we were at certain points in this time frame in the world where we did reduce the size of the military like Bill Clinton reduced it during that time frame, and that was a good move. There was no reason for us to have the size that we did. But we are facing the United States is facing some serious threats. And people say, well, wait a minute, you’re talking about the United States, though not necessarily the states itself, which is possible. Nuclear war is always possible. But we do have, I think, in a certain sense, a responsibility to other states, other countries that when we talk about through strength. So, for instance, if we didn’t have all those tanks that we were able to give to the Ukrainians, then they wouldn’t have any other tanks. So that’s you know, it’s a balance, I think. Doug I think there’s a balance there to try to figure it out. Now, fortunately, I guess at least I think is fortunately I don’t have to make that decision because that’s a very difficult decision to make for any politicians or any people in the country. And so the bottom line is, I agree with you, I think we should be able to spend more money on the frogs in the Amazon. Best way to explain it, because like you’re right, there’s very good things that come out of.

[18:40] What you may think may not be worth an effort of researching in science has developed into a lot of different things, whether it’s been medicines.

[18:53] The environment, how to control the environment. So we’re not impacting these animals and that kind of stuff. So.

[19:03] For more information about any of the topics covered in this episode, check out our show notes at Secular Left Dot You.

[19:10] Music.

[19:17] I wanted to move into another part of some of the things that you talk about in your episodes. You spend a lot of time in your episodes talking about God and Jesus, complaining about the loss of morality in this country. And I just wanted to ask you, as a religious person who obviously you pray a lot. Does it ever cross your mind that if God existed, that he would be at least a liberal or a Democrat?

[19:48] That’s a that’s a great question. And I understand what you’re saying. So.

[19:55] I’ve actually read articles about that, what you would call there’s one guy there’s one guy wrote a whole book, right? And it said, Jesus is a liberal. Okay, So and I get it in my mind, Jesus is not a you know, he’s he has nothing to do with politics. When you’re taught what you’re what you are talking about is supposedly and that the liberal mindset is supposed to be kind and good and, they’re not be they don’t have blinders on and and they’re not supposed to be racist and all that stuff right now my mind. I guarantee you it doesn’t go across the board. Every liberal does not think that way. Same thing with conservatives. All conservatives don’t think the same way. So but when you’re talking about as far as yes, I am.

[20:54] You know, connected, absolutely connected with with my religious belief of God and that Jesus came here to save us. I believe that, but. Comparing. The Son of God, which we believe to.

[21:13] To our methods or our way of culture and stuff is. I don’t think that’s. That’s right. I put it to you that way.

[21:23] The reason why I mentioned that is because, you know, there are quite a few people in politics today that wear their religion on their sleeve. Yes, we have. I agree with that. We have them using their religion to try to pass public policies. And that can hurt people such as abortion, outlaw and abortion. And so that always comes from a religious background. It’s not based on any real science or or secular purposes. And then we have people who believe that churches are the only places that should have charity, that the government should not be charitable and to take care of people who need it that are struggling. And, you know, and that’s the thing is the people we most humans believe that humans should be not have to struggle. They should be taken care of if they need to be taken care of. I agree with that. Right. And and so I just that’s the main thing that I have against overly religious people, as they tend to do that, as they tend to justify, being bad to people because of their religion. And how do you feel about people that do that? Well, first off, I’m I’m not in that kind of religion that you’re talking about. And people say. Well, you’re a Christian.

[22:52] And if you think for a second that everybody that identifies as a Christian is the same, you’re on the wrong planet, because that is definitely not true. There’s people that claim to be Christians, but they don’t act like Christians. And this is what you’re talking what you’re talking about. Here’s the my my point of view and what I believe in, what God and his word has taught us and what we’re supposed to be like is just like you’re talking about, we love everyone. And that is the God’s truth.

[23:23] I don’t care who you are. I don’t care where you come from. God, in my mind, created you. I have no right to be God and to play God. And this is what you’re. I think you’re referring to Now, people have opinion on all of this, internal opinion and so forth. And as far as a conservative true Christian, when you’re talking about, specifically these matters, if if we believe that this should not be part of the world, then just like anybody else that has the ability of free speech, we should be able to say it just like they don’t say. Or the other side says, Well, we believe in abortion. You have the right to free speech. We’re the issue comes to is where we on both sides try to say that we have something secular per se that.

[24:25] Allows us to be evil to the other person with that. That’s not that’s not right. It’s especially coming from conservatives. And believe it or not, I’ve seen it more than once that that I’ve seen some very evil conservative people. And when I’m being by evil, there are so ingrained and in their their way of life, they they.

[24:53] They have no ability to accept anything else but what they 100% believe in. That’s I think that’s the where you’re talking about where comes into that play. Now, as far as Congress and the legislators and so forth, I have no issue whether a person is religious or not. What I do have an issue with is when either or either side attacks each other, because they either are not religious. That’s that’s really not how it should be done. The way it should be done is using the evidence, the discussion, using the words. Right. Taking your personal feelings out of it as much as possible and determine how does this impact society and what is the pro cons to that. And I’m not saying that I’m I won’t ever be changed in my opinion. I believe that I’ll never I’ll believe what God tells us that we should believe. But that doesn’t mean I got to push that on every citizen in the world.

[26:04] Yeah. I mean, anybody anybody that’s running for from my point of view, anybody that’s running for elective office, or is serving in government in a in a high value office like Supreme Court Justice or or something like that. And they make a point of pointing out that they’re religious and that they pray and that they go to church. I mean, that they actually talk about that in interviews and make that a part of their life, their public life, then I think that they should be free to be questioned about their beliefs. Sure. Yeah. And and and I know when we had justice. Amy Barrett. Coney. Coney Barrett.

[26:57] Coney Barrett. Yeah. When she was running, you know, people got upset. Conservatives got upset that people were questioning her religion. Sure. And that’s where her background is from. She was at the Notre Dame Law School. Right. You know, she spoke it at Catholic Law Things and and her personal life. She was part of a religious group that was very conservative. And I thought it was very appropriate to ask her about her religion. Yeah, I true. Because, again, I don’t feel that you should use your religion to set public policy, if that’s all you’re basing it on.

[27:39] So it plays a part. I mean, people that are religious are not religious. It plays a part, but it shouldn’t say, Well, I’m going to do this because it’s against my religion or for my religion. Like like we see recently the in the public schools, people are coming in and wanting books banned because it doesn’t subscribe to their religious beliefs. You know, I disagree with that totally. And so when people when you talk about people’s religion, conservatives tend to believe that it’s a personal attack. That’s true. I mean, the personal tech part, a lot of them are like that. And and. Well, first off, if if they feel that way, then they’re not my mind are not very intelligent people and they’re definitely not Christians because you can attack me all day long.

[28:37] It’s not going to affect me one iota and I’m not being right. And I wouldn’t want I wouldn’t want I don’t agree with people attacking people, you know, like like I have friends of mine who are also atheists and they’re like, oh, those Christians are so stupid. I don’t subscribe to that because I know some people who are Christian. And the same thing, you know, I have a terminology that a lot of times I tell people I’m going, Well, he’s an atheist. And I says, Well, how do you know he’s an atheist? And what he says is an atheist, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s an atheist and just, you know, whatever. But if they want to believe that, that’s fine. They’re human beings. And in that case, where you’re talking about the Supreme Court justice, this is where same thing.

[29:25] When they get in there as a justice, What is or what guides a Supreme Court justice? L. A. W. The law, right. That’s where the decisions are made. So when they bring a case in, whether it’s gun case, abortion case, right, whatever, whatever comes in there, their job is to look at that specific case, that specific issues. Compare that to what is on the books as the law of the land today and then make a decision based on that. Unfortunately, on both sides sometimes. That inner human being self, which is just natural.

[30:12] They kind of want to go overboard and use that as an explanation of of agreeing or disagreeing with it. So, for instance, if you take abortion, for instance.

[30:24] If somebody says, Well, what does Bud fill out about Phil, about abortion? And I go, I don’t think we should have it, period in a conversation. But that’s not what the law says. The law says the states can determine.

[30:41] Who has an abortion and who doesn’t. That’s that’s how the real law is written. The Constitution. That’s how it’s written. The states have that kind of power. So the issue is, is when it comes down to religious people or non religious people being attacked.

[30:59] When I’m being attacked, you shouldn’t attack them. You can ask questions. And I think you should ask questions because how you feel as a human being and your opinion about something matters doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to use that opinion well. If you’re a lawyer, you should never use that opinion if you’re a regular individual or whatever associated with society and so forth. Same thing. I don’t think people should get off in left field. When you start discussing whether you’re religious or not, what you believe and so forth. I try to have a very. Productive conversation with anybody. And I have actually scolded conservatives for same type of reasons that you’re talking about. Your way overboard here. You’ve lost your mind. You want everybody to be religious. You want everybody to think the way that you think. So another example is like you’re talking about the books, right? Number one, everybody has a right to to write a book, etc., etc.. However, worked to me, were the issue drawn? Is this where you have information or stuff in a book that.

[32:18] Should only be available to people at a certain age. I totally agree with I don’t think a six year old should be reading a book about having sex. That’s just. And I’m not talking from a religious perspective. I’m talking about from society perspective. Now, we’re going to be getting into kids having sex at eight years old. And that’s not that’s not good at all because they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re not able at that point in their lives to make that determination. So. But if you’re talking about like.

[32:51] An LGBT book talking about their lifestyle and all that kind of stuff.

[32:57] But but when you cross in that line, talking about things that I think personally that individuals are too young to grasp the impact of what’s going on, that’s that’s that’s kind of different. Not saying you can’t put it in the library just needs to be put into a place where, quote, younger ones. Don’t have access. Do you trust librarians and school officials to make that decision, or do you think that the subset of parents that have a concern about it should make that decision? I think the community should make it. The community as a whole, whether it’s. Isn’t that isn’t that what they do when they elect school board members and and fund libraries? Don’t aren’t they the ones that make that decision? You know, the same way that we have representative government. No. Well, I mean, I get what you’re saying.

[33:56] When somebody gets elected, you’re saying the people have put their trust in you. Brett.

[34:04] However, just because they put they trust in you and you go into that position, things might change or culture changes or whatever happens, right? You may end up believing or making a decision or something that really affects a lot of people in that community. Not saying everybody agrees or whatever, but I am going to tell you this and I’ll stand by this 100%. A parent is responsible for the education of their kids, not the school. Not saying the school is not responsible to teach them. But a parent should have the right.

[34:45] To the education of their kids. And also, I don’t believe a teacher is a parent. There there are limitations to what a teacher should be able to do. They should be able to teach knowledge, information, all that kind of stuff. But when you start talking about this, this social changes and all that, I still believe the parent has the right to to that determination, not the teacher. But but again, when they vote to elect their school board members and the school board is the one that hires the teachers. So you’re saying that you don’t trust the school board to make those decisions? Absolutely not. I’m just telling you up front.

[35:39] This. His secular left.

[35:47] Let’s move on to a similar discussion. I was listening to a recent I think it was a recent. No, it might have been. It was this month’s episode where you’re talking about the National Merit Scholar program. Yes. And the one school you were in the second half, you were talking about the the merits screening and New York. But in the first half you were talking it was a Virginia school district. Virginia Yeah, that that said they weren’t going to go by the National Merit Scholar. And. I don’t know if you are aware. One of the concerns about standardized testing that that a lot of these programs use like National Merit Scholar and SAT and ACT has a very racist.

[36:47] Background. It they they were started back in the early 1900s 1917 or I think the first SAT was 1926. They were created in order to screen out people of color. And to support the merit. The merit of white people. And so that is a history of that that is in in in that that testing. So that’s why there’s a lot of pushback in minority communities against standardized test, standardized testing. The SAT was originally conceived to test aptitude for learning, not what you actually learned. So to use that as to award a National Merit Scholarship is you. The National Merit Scholarship says that you’re getting this because of the work you’ve done. When the test that they awarded on was based on your aptitude for learning, not necessarily what you’ve already learned.

[37:58] And so that’s where I disagreed disagreed on that, that point that you were making about that, because there are a lot of concerns about standardized testing overall. And the thing about it is, you know, conservatives like yourself talk about merit a lot. And the problem is that when you have the system built. To award you and support you. That’s not merit. You know, if it’s already set up for you to be successful and not for people who are not you. That’s not that’s not fair. It’s not just us. And I think a lot of education and people in education are trying to change it to make it more equitable. You know, to apply resources and techniques to help bring up people who may not, test well or or may have problems learning while also recognizing people that are working hard. So a lot of times when I hear people, well, you just have to work harder, it’s easy for somebody who already is at the top of the scale to say you just need to work harder. It’s not so easy when you’re not at the top of the scale. And just it just for an example, when I was in school.

[39:27] You know, I’m white, I’m male, so I didn’t get any special treatment. However, I was segregated with because of my socioeconomic status. I lived in a trailer and I was poor for most of my youth. I was segregated into classes with kids that went to the vocational school. Even though I was on a college prep track, I wanted to go to college. I was not afforded the opportunity to take more challenging classes because I was poor. And that was in the eighties. And it’s changed. It’s different now. They don’t do that anymore. But that’s what I’m but that was the example that you have, the structure it’s already made to to help one segment. And so when you change that, people naturally get upset about it.

[40:26] The issue is you got to go. Couple different directions. The reason I was talking about that on the podcast is this.

[40:37] Is. The colleges. And to be able to get into colleges. I mean, there’s ones now that are it doesn’t matter. They’ll accept whoever it is and they put them in their little categories or whatever, which. You can do whatever you want to do. But I agree with your talking about the merit system or the test. But. The only thing I can say is fix it. You know, I completely agree with it, But it’s the only way that a lot of these very intelligent people are ever going to get into college, because just like you’re saying. You know, they’re not poor. They’re coming from rich families. Not all of them. But the thing about it is, is how do you determine? Who has looked at it this way. The ability by the time they graduate high school and and. The actual want to to go to college and finish and graduate. And that’s that’s part of that issue. Just like you. I had five brothers and a sister. Dirt. Dirt poor all the way through high school.

[41:54] And when I went to school in the late sixties and seventies. The schools that I went to, everybody was the same. There wasn’t we didn’t have this like special class or these people were in this upper level class, whatever. No. All the way across the board, even through high school, we didn’t have this. Now they had some advanced classes that somebody can enroll in, but anybody could enroll in it. It wasn’t like, well, you can take advanced algebra because you’re smarter than somebody, you know. It was just the way it was set up. I don’t know if you’re talking about specifically how certain cities or major metropolitan areas do things, which is possible, but I do know where I came from. Wasn’t like that now.

[42:47] To be honest with you, I was probably middle road, maybe a little bit lower than that when I was in school. It’s not that I wasn’t smart. I was lazy. I didn’t. I played sports, chased women, whatever. I didn’t. I just didn’t want to do school. So I joined the Marine Corps while I was in the Marine Corps. I worked hard and I got a college degree. So then when I retired from the Marine Corps, I was able to go into a very quick into an upper level management system, you know, based upon, working hard to get my degree. Everybody should have that opportunity. Doug, I totally agree with you. We got to figure out a way.

[43:31] Where it doesn’t matter who you are, if you have even if you’re not initially intelligent enough per se. Right. Or you don’t have to be the top of the scale. What I would like to see, just like when I had Marines come in and when I was a drill instructor, I had kids that were just like me. They worked hard and you could tell, right? And they made great Marines. But then we had what I would call a lot of these spoiled rotten kid people, right? They never did anything in their life. They were handed everything, as a matter of fact. Some of them are being put into this military because their parents wanted to try to teach them something or whatever. Right. So so that’s that’s what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, is every human being that wants that tries and wants to succeed, we need to make sure we have a system that that can happen. If you have people that are lazy and they’re just they want the government to hand out everything to them. I can’t help you there at all. I don’t think there’s a lot of people like that. I’m just saying. The majority of them need whatever they can.

[44:46] Also the other part about that is. What about a student? I failed two grades to first grade in the eighth grade. Right? Not. Not because I wasn’t smart enough. I didn’t work hard. I didn’t. I didn’t care. When I was in eighth grade, I was I was the quarterback for the football team. So I can care less now. Back then, if you fail to subjects you fail. They put you back a grade and on how it is now. But the point I’m making is is. In some cases. In some ways, that made me kind of jump up and go, okay, I need to work. So sometimes people have to fail to succeed. But we don’t want to happen is we don’t want them to fail in school so much that they won’t have that opportunity when they go to college, go vocational tech or whatever. So I agree the system needs to be fixed, no doubt about it. I’m just not happy with the education system as it is today.

[45:48] Hello. This is Doug, host of Secular Left, reminding you that I like to be validated. If you like this podcast and want to thank me. Feel free to buy me a coffee. Go to buy me a coffee Mi.com slash secular left and donate some cash to help make this a better show and validate me as a person. You’ll feel better in the morning.

[46:17] On a couple of your episodes that I listened to you either quoted Ronald Reagan or you had a recording of Ronald Reagan. So I’m assuming I’m assuming that you are a fan, a fan of Ronald Reagan. Absolutely right. And. So.

[46:37] How do you how does it affect you, your your fandom, as it were, your your belief in Ronald Reagan, to know that he did sign a law when he was governor of California that restricted gun gun rights and that he was a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state when he was president.

[47:00] Because that’s usually something that that those are two issues that most conservatives today would would not support somebody. That did that? Well, the church and state thing is not what people says it’s supposed to be. I mean, it’s not like, well, the church is not supposed to get involved in the state or whatever. The state is supposed to be completely religious free. That’s what it is. That’s not what the intent was. The intent was was the state and not and I can show you prove it to you. The state does not have the law or the ability. To come down on the church at all. You know, it’s make the church turn into the state. That’s what the real law was. It wasn’t vice versa. So should religion be in the state? No. We already had that discussion where we’re talking about you have religious or not. You’ve got to talk about the issues. You’ve got to talk about the laws and all that kind of stuff. As far as the Reagan doing the Second Amendment or gun control laws or whatever there should be.

[48:15] Certain people that are trained, etc. to. Be able to buy specific weapons, specifically machine guns or whatever. And they they do still have machine guns that people can buy, but you have to have a special permit to do that. I’m going to tell you upfront, as far as the Second Amendment, it’s in. It’s the Second Amendment is in there for a purpose. And that purpose still applies today. It’s for a person to defend themselves and defend themselves against the government. It’s that simple. It’s it’s in writing. It’s exactly what it says. And yes, we have a huge what you’d call a gun problem.

[49:00] And especially the liberal side looks at it that way. If we can take away all the guns, then the crime is going to go drastically down. Well, look at Australia. Look at England. They still just have as much crime as we do, whether it’s using a gun, bat, knife, whatever. They can have the same discussion. But and, you know, again, I understand everybody’s point of view. I’m not disagreeing with I’m just going to tell you mine. The Second Amendment allows a person to protect themselves. That’s it. That’s my opinion. So you cannot take it from me ever. It’s that simple. I will fight till I’m dead. You will not take Second Amendment way. Not. Not for me.

[49:46] Okay. And as we kind of wrap things up for today, what I usually do is I give my guests the opportunity to make a statement or comment or, whatever you want to say to the people that are listening to this podcast or are watching the video and and, so have at it.

[50:08] Well, Doug, first thing is, thank you so much. This was, to me, a great discussion. Like you said, we’re not going to ever agree on everything. That’s that’s absolutely a fact. But the thing about is I love having discussion and and I’m not shy about telling you how I feel. And I hope that it’s not a personal attack or anything. It’s just it’s it’s my character and what I believe in. And so, again, I thank you for for bringing me on the podcast. I hope that more people can get involved in in doing this together on both sides. And hopefully we can help resolve some of these issues that that are associated with each of us. There was a time last thing I want to say. There was a time in Congress, and I think the biggest time frame was there in the beginning years, 1780, 1790, probably all the way through at least the mid to upper 1800s, where we had massive compromise between the two parties.

[51:17] Because they didn’t use their their beliefs and their personal ideology. To develop law based upon the society and the culture. And you go back and you can see what they did during that time frame, who voted for what, and so forth. So, for instance, the last. Talking about it, you know, the civil rights movement and the civil rights law in the sixties, the Democrats was the one totally against it. So you just you know, it’s kind of weird how things are kind of flipping around, but we need to come back to some kind of compromise. And Doug, this is how we do it. Appreciate, again, being on your podcast. Yeah, but and I do appreciate you coming on. And I to tell you the truth, I was very suspicious when you wanted to Come on. I was because. Because I’m used to those screeching talking heads on in the media. And I was. I was prepared. I was ready for bear. Yeah. I got, you know, Sean HANNITY. Right, right, right, right. And I and I do I do agree with you that there is a lack of cooperation. There should be more. And in.

[52:36] I’m not going to say that it’s totally both sides fault, because that would I kind of blanch at doing both side type arguments. But I think that people should be able to come together and talk about these issues honestly and do what’s right for the majority of the country and try to help. I mean, my philosophy is you tried it with public policy. You try to help as many people as you can and hurt as little of the people as you have to. Sure. I agree with that. And thanks again. I appreciate you coming on. You bet. Take care of yourself.

[53:19] Thank you for listening to this episode. You can check out more information, including links to sources used in our show notes on our website. At secular left us.

[53:33] Secular left is hosted, written and produced by Doug Berger, and he is solely responsible for the content.

[53:43] Send us your comments, either using the contact form on the website or by sending us a note at comments at secular left dot us.

[53:57] Our theme music is dank and nasty. Composed using Amplify Studio.

[54:05] Music.