Loophole Could Allow New Democrat '28th Amendment'; Biden Activates Part of Military

Hey, good morning, everyone. I want to talk to you about two actually very big stories right now. One which is kind of everywhere, and the second which is surprisingly not being talked about. I will talk about in a bit that President Joe Biden has in fact signed a document that will activate some of the US military reserves who are going to now be sent to Europe. And I'll explain my take on that and what's happening. It's not a lot, I think it's like 3,000, but it's a big deal regardless. And we'll discuss that. I know a lot of people talking about that one. But in my opinion, the bigger story that is not being discussed about nearly enough is the fact that Democrats right now are trying to add a new amendment to the US Constitution. They are trying to use a loophole that exists within technicalities to pass a new 28th amendment. And this amendment, although it was limited to like equal rights of men and women, like, you know, during the women's suffrage movement, it's an old one, and it was never properly... it was never put into place technically, but they're arguing that because they had the number of states on the side of it at various points in history, even though some of those states withdrew their support of it, they should be able to shove it through, because if you ignore some of them having pulled out, they would have the states backing to add a constitutional amendment. And they might have the monopoly within the government to be able to pass this. We'll see. I'll explain the details on this and what it means, because although it was originally about equal rights of men and women, they want to extend it to everything, gender, abortion, anything having to do with identity politics, or gender politics, they believe this should apply to. Let me show you what they're doing and how they're doing it. And because this is not being discussed nearly enough right now. In my opinion, this is the biggest story in the country. Let me show you. New York Times had it actually. It says, Democrats try a novel tactic to revive the equal rights amendment. Equal rights, who doesn't want equal rights? It says, Democrats in Congress are making a fresh push for the nearly century old equal rights amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution, rallying around a creative legal theory. I like their choice of words. A creative legal theory. In a bid to revive an amendment that would explicitly guarantee sex equality as a way to protect reproductive rights in post-Roe America. I mean, Roe v. Wade, and they believe this should enshrine abortion in the Constitution, basically. It doesn't actually do that. I'll explain how. They're interpreting it already. They're already interpreting it in such a way where they believe they can extend it to any kind of gender politics, abortion, or anything of that sort. But they say, Senator Kristen Gillibrand of New York and Representative Cori Bush of Missouri are set to introduce a joint resolution on Thursday stating the measure has already been ratified, they claim. This is the way they're doing it. They're saying it's already been ratified and is enforceable as we speak as the 28th amendment in the Constitution. The resolution states that the National Archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, must immediately do so. And New York Times says that's a novel tactic by pursuing a measure that was first proposed in Congress 100 years ago and was approved by Congress about 50 years later, but not ratified at the time to be added to the Constitution. Further, and they state this is Democrats' second attempt this year to advance the Equal Rights Amendment. In April, Senate Republicans blocked a similar resolution that sought to remove an expired deadline for states to ratify an amendment. Only two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voted for the resolution. Why would that have been important real briefly on that? Had the Democrats been able to remove an expired deadline for states to ratify the amendment, that would mean that states that had previously voted for it and then repealed their support, the time at which they decided to approve it would be counted as state approval and the combined states that had backed it would be taken solely on all the different states that had at one time supported it, even if they had withdrawn their support later. But they say this, and bear with me because this is actually pretty important. Bear with me. I know legal stuff, it's a little boring, but bear with me because this is one of the most important stories that's happening right now. And they say this, now Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Bush are trying a different approach. They are simply ignoring, this is further in the article by the way, they are simply ignoring the issue of the expired ratification deadline altogether. And this is how they're doing it now. They're bypassing the idea of whether it even has to be approved. They're bypassing the idea of whether or not states have to be counted based on when they supported and didn't support it. They're saying it was passed 50 years ago, but it wasn't just put into place. They're saying based on that, this should already be the law of the land. This is what they're saying. They are simply ignoring the issue of the expired ratification deadline altogether and introducing a resolution that argues the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, is already the law of the land. And they say this, Mrs. Gillibrand, this is an opportunity to start fresh with a legitimate legal theory that has basis in constitutional law. She says, I believe President Biden can do this. I'm going to make the legal and political argument over the next several months that this is something he can do. They believe Biden should act. Let me explain what this actually does. I'll read you a little bit more, then I'll show you another story explaining some other background. Further, it states that at issue is the complex procedure for adding an amendment to the Constitution, which requires passage by both houses of Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states, in this case, within a seven-year deadline. So there is a seven-year deadline. That's going to be one of their big challenges with it. Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment back in 1972 and subsequently enacted a law extending that deadline to 10 years. But by 1982, only 35 states had ratified. Again, you need three fourths of the states. Sorry, only three states had ratified and said that those were... and then three more, the Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia. So I was checking something else. They have ratified the amendment surpassing the threshold, but some others have rescinded their ratification. So that's the problem. They fell short, right? They fell short just a little bit, and then three other states joined in. They reached the goal, but by the time they had reached the goal, some of the states had repealed some of that support, and that's the issue that happened with it. But it says further in, Democrats are more eager than ever to make a new push for the... This is still New York Times. ... push for the amendment in the wake of the Dobbs decision. The key section of the amendment with just 24 words is packed with potential. This is how they're framing it. It is packed with potential to protect access to abortion care nationwide, defeat bans on gender affirming healthcare, shore up marriage equality, eliminate the gender wage gap, help end the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and so much more. Yeah, women and girls. What's their position on that movie Sound of Freedom and child sex trafficking again? What's their position on mass human trafficking across the US-Mexico border? What's their position on mass child sex slavery being found by a grand jury in Florida having to do with the illegal immigration? Do they still believe that's all conspiracy theory, or do they actually mean they want to protect women and girls? I don't know. You tell me. Ms. Bush added, though, she said, we have to just keep pushing it. We can't fall victim to the Republican agenda. The whole victim thing is funny here because it's literally oftentimes people who are victimizing others claiming they're victims as they do it. But regardless, imagine wanting to kill babies that much. Just being blunt. Imagine wanting that so bad that you would just dedicate your heart and soul to it like this. But if they pass this, it's going to make abortion, nationwide abortion, constitutional right. It's going to be embedded in the constitution, meaning they can treat it like the Second Amendment. They can treat it as the government backing of killing babies is going to be as important as your freedom of speech. When it comes to schools doing gender affirming care, i.e. giving your children hormone blockers, oftentimes without their consent as is being done in many states, castrating young boys, including chemical castration. Doing these types of things in schools, that is going to be as protected as your right to free speech and your right to own firearms, which they don't want that one. They don't want either of these, actually. The idea of homosexuality, of gay marriage, all these things are going to be constitutional rights, not just people's own business. It's going to be embedded in the constitution and the way that public schools teach it, in the way that any facility receiving government money handles it, including in the way that courts and the constitution, again, the Supreme Court have to do it, viewed through constitutional rights, including the way that military and police oaths to their oath of going into their positions of what it entails, and even the oaths of office that US government officials take where they swear under oath to protect the constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Meaning, if you are a domestic enemy of the constitution, if you're a domestic enemy of the right to gender affirming care, if you're a domestic enemy to the idea of abortion, for example, if you're a domestic enemy to the idea that children should not be given hormone blockers, and you know, hormones and then puberty blockers, or undergo castration of various forms, well, the military would have, the military would then have the constitutional requirement under their oath to defend the nation against you. Be clear on what this would mean. Seriously. Be clear on what it would mean if they're able to pass this. Now, what the New York Times does not properly explain is what that constitutional amendment actually says, because they're only going by the interpretation of it. Let me show you this. Now what does that constitutional amendment actually say? Daily Caller talks about it. They say, the amendment's plain text states, it's only 24 words by the way, states that women have equal rights to men throughout the US, but legal experts view the measure as a way to push through pro-abortion measures as well as policies erasing sex distinctions in public restrooms and other traditionally sex-segregated spaces. So technically, all that new amendment would say, if you go by like the word of the law, if you go by what it actually says, is women have equal rights to men. And of course, being past 50 years ago, where they could not have foreseen all, probably abortion, they could not have foreseen children undergoing sex changes without parental consent or sex changes in general. Heck, when I was a kid, do you remember that movie Silence of the Lambs and the bad guy was like a transgender guy who wore people's skin? You know, when you talk about how transgenderism used to be revealed, it was like associated with serial killers and stuff. It was horror movie stuff. The idea that it would be like culturally acceptable or culturally tolerated even is mind-blowing. It was serial killer stuff. It was what horror movies made the bad guy because he wanted to view the guy as twisted. It was a way for them to make you feel, this guy has some serious issues and I'm afraid of him. You know, that's the way that popular entertainment used to frame this. The idea that it would be normal or pushed as normal is a new thing. And 50 years ago, people I don't think could have possibly imagined it. So when they were talking about, yeah, you're saying Buffalo Bill, that's right. It was Buffalo Bill. Yeah. When they start talking about giving women equal rights, I seriously doubt this is how they intended it to be interpreted. And again, you know, the equal rights idea of just, hey, women are equal to men. Fine, great. I believe men and women are equal personally. I don't believe we're the same, but I believe we have equal rights. I believe we're equal in humanity, you know, of course. But of course, a hundred years ago, when they agreed to that, and a hundred years ago when they were saying that, they could not have imagined the things they're pushing now that are now tied in with this concept. And it is utterly, utterly insane, in my opinion. And they're trying to use this legal loophole to shove it through. Anyways, here we are folks. Let's talk about Biden activating the military. President Joe Biden has in fact activated part of the military and they're gonna be going to Ukraine. Or not Ukraine, they're gonna be going to Europe. Those of you on YouTube for this part, join us on Epoch TV. Breathe the fresh air of freedom. It's our uncensored video platform. We have a lot of great content there. Movies, documentaries, the rest of my episode, and a lot of other good stuff. So join us on Epoch TV, E-P-O-C-H TV.com, or try it out. Come on, what are you doing? And join our live Q&A as well. I'll see you over there in just a sec. That's it folks, thank you so much. All right, let's talk about how Biden has activated.