Could the very freedoms we hold dear be slipping through our fingers? Dale Hutchison, a retired drug and alcohol counselor and now host of "Coffee Time Again," joins us for a stirring exploration into the intersection of American history and constitutional rights. With a past life as a restaurant owner, Dale's voice now resonates in the podcasting realm, where he champions a deeper grasp of our country's core principles. Our conversation unearths the concerns surrounding the diminishing understanding and respect for the Constitution, pointing to pivotal moments and presidential decisions that have shaped today's political landscape.
As we navigate the labyrinth of government bureaucracy, we confront the literal and metaphorical draining of Washington D.C., assessing the origins and repercussions of federal agencies that have burgeoned well beyond their original intent. From educational oversight to environmental regulations, we question the federal government's encroachment into areas once controlled by state and local authorities. The episode probes the impact of legislation like "No Child Left Behind" and the establishment of institutions such as the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency. Through these discussions, Dale and I seek pathways to reinvigorate the constitutional foundations that seem to be eroding before our eyes.
Join us as we step into the classroom ourselves, dissecting the contentions within the educational sphere and the politicization that has seeped into its core. Reflecting on my own experiences as an educator, we tackle the shift from local to federal control and its effect on the narratives taught to our nation's youth. We also contemplate the media's influence on public perception and historical discourse. As we bid Dale adieu, we not only express our appreciation for his insights but look forward with eagerness to further dialogues over coffee that will continue to challenge and enlighten our listeners.
Could the very freedoms we hold dear be slipping through our fingers? Dale Hutchison, a retired drug and alcohol counselor and now host of "Coffee Time Again," joins us for a stirring exploration into the intersection of American history and constitutional rights. With a past life as a restaurant owner, Dale's voice now resonates in the podcasting realm, where he champions a deeper grasp of our country's core principles. Our conversation unearths the concerns surrounding the diminishing understanding and respect for the Constitution, pointing to pivotal moments and presidential decisions that have shaped today's political landscape.
As we navigate the labyrinth of government bureaucracy, we confront the literal and metaphorical draining of Washington D.C., assessing the origins and repercussions of federal agencies that have burgeoned well beyond their original intent. From educational oversight to environmental regulations, we question the federal government's encroachment into areas once controlled by state and local authorities. The episode probes the impact of legislation like "No Child Left Behind" and the establishment of institutions such as the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency. Through these discussions, Dale and I seek pathways to reinvigorate the constitutional foundations that seem to be eroding before our eyes.
Join us as we step into the classroom ourselves, dissecting the contentions within the educational sphere and the politicization that has seeped into its core. Reflecting on my own experiences as an educator, we tackle the shift from local to federal control and its effect on the narratives taught to our nation's youth. We also contemplate the media's influence on public perception and historical discourse. As we bid Dale adieu, we not only express our appreciation for his insights but look forward with eagerness to further dialogues over coffee that will continue to challenge and enlighten our listeners.
Welcome to the Dural McLean Show. We have a guest on the show again today. It's the host of Coffee Time Again, a podcast about government and education. The podcast is about politics as it relates to what happened in the past and all the way to prehistory. If it happened in the past, it will happen again If nothing changes and we leave the liberal progressives in charge of our great country. The host of the podcast is a gentleman by the name of Dale Hutchison, and I want to welcome him to our show today. Welcome to the show, Mr Dale Hutchison.
Speaker 2:Thank you very much, though I'm glad to be here with you.
Speaker 1:Glad to have you. So, when you started your show, what gave you the motivation? And just give us a little bit of your background as well.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm a retired drug and alcohol counselor as my second career. I had two careers. One was in restaurant business for 28 years and I gave it up in 1991. I became a drug and alcohol counselor and in 2015, I retired after 24 years 65. And I spent the first five years bouncing around doing nothing going crazy. So I started writing a blog. I figured I could write a blog. I could write pretty recently. Oh miss, nobody was reading it and I wrote it, so nobody, very few people were reading it and I got a little frustrated.
Speaker 2:I thought this is not going to work, so I said I do a podcast. So I started. So in 2020, I did my first podcast on coffee time again, and it was the first five shows on the first ten amendments to the Constitution and how we're losing our rights. Slowly but surely, they're taking our rights away from us, beginning with Amendment 1 all the way down to Amendment 10. But very few people even know what Amendment 10 is, let alone the World Museum.
Speaker 1:And did you give up on the blog wholly or is it still available as in conjunction with the blog? No?
Speaker 2:I just gave up on the blog For a little bit. I right now it's just show notes and stuff like that. I'm running an introduction. I have two shows. I have another one that I do call Trauma, to Love, but I do Weakly. Monday is the noon Pacific with a call host and she is out of town right now, but so I work on that too. That's a show that Trauma is a new one. It's only got seven shows.
Speaker 1:All right, so that's good. I got a lot of questions out of that, so first I want to ask why the Constitution? Why is the Constitution? Your theme, why is that important to you, is enough to where you'd start a blog to write about it. Why the Constitution?
Speaker 2:Because the Constitution is our basic framework for our government and our country. What keeps this country great is our freedoms guarantees in the Constitution, and it's a framework for the government to where it's supposed to work. And it did for about 50 years and then it started deteriorating after then.
Speaker 1:You know, I think you knew I was going to ask because you have a. I've been listening to your show. You have a really good historical analysis. Do you think that a lot of the eroding of the Constitution of freedoms that we have is because of our lack of knowledge and history?
Speaker 2:It's not our lack of knowledge, even though that's a big part of it. The biggest part of it is what we're getting. We're not teaching it in schools anymore. We don't teach history. We don't teach anything in school anymore, you know, just a bunch of garbage. And we need to go back to the basics, go back to reading, writing and arithmetic, but we're not teaching history. We're not teaching old history. We're not teaching civics. We're not teaching what's going on in the world. They have no idea, as most people have gone on a map and find verses. They couldn't do it.
Speaker 1:But on.
Speaker 2:Ukraine or Israel.
Speaker 1:This is very true. When you get to your, you postulated that about 50 years into the history of America, that's when the Constitution started to be eroded. Could you just give us a bit more background into what was going on in that period, of why that erosion happened and kind of how we got to where we are right now? Yeah well.
Speaker 2:Thomas Jefferson was president and he was a federalist, which means he was a Democrat the Whigs they called themselves back then, or what we would call the Republican today, the Soviet Union today and the Federalist wanted a strong federal government, which is what the Democrats want nowadays it's a very strong federal government. And he was a federalist and he wanted a strong government. He wanted a central bank, like we have now, which took to 1913 to give it. We got it, unfortunately. And he tried to get more government interference in commerce, international commerce. He got us entangled in the first Gulf War. It was in 1903, I'm sorry, was the first Gulf War. Thomas Jefferson's people were having bodily coast violence with kidnapping. They were Muslim vodicos and they were kidnapping American soldiers, and not American soldiers but American seagulls. He set in the first marine expeditionary force.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I read that. I have a book, thomas Jefferson, the Art of Power. And so his goal was a massive federal government based on what was his appreciation to Europe, or Britain, or Paris, or you know, he just wanted the United States to be a great country.
Speaker 2:I mean, he was a good patriot. So I'm not just disputing that, I'm just disputing the fact that he wanted a strong federal government, which is not what the Constitution was set up to do.
Speaker 1:And his biggest detractor was Madison.
Speaker 2:Madison and Adams OK.
Speaker 1:Him and.
Speaker 2:Adams just made. Family made peace with each other about a week before they died. They both died on the right forth Same day.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah. So I was a pilot and so from Jefferson wanting a big federal government to this big behemoth that we have now, that's when the erosion of our histories kind of started to get smaller and smaller and smaller From your 65, so when did you think there was a period of time where it was very blatant and stark, where you saw like that was a massive encroachment and Americans kind of just passively let it happen? Or was there resistance?
Speaker 2:Yes, there was very little resistance. It was 1913, and it was the election of Woodrow Wilson as president.
Speaker 1:Woodrow Wilson.
Speaker 2:He is quite possibly, despite buying, our worst president ever. He was a saganist, he was a racist, he was homophobic, he was a Zionist. Not a Zionist, but what is that? One that don't like religions?
Speaker 1:So he was an atheist. Yeah no, he was.
Speaker 2:Catholic.
Speaker 1:Oh.
Speaker 2:A Baptist. I'm sorry, he was a Baptist and he said if you're not a Baptist, you're going to hell.
Speaker 1:Oh OK.
Speaker 2:So he was very much focused on that one because he was Southern and he sat up to his presidency while he was governor of New Jersey and then went to the United States Constitution for an income tax. Before that time Lincoln tried to use an income tax. Somebody else tried to put in an income tax as well, graduated like we have now and it was decoded unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court twice. So when he was governor of New Jersey he started pushing for an constitutional amendment to involve for an income tax. So because of Wilson we have income tax.
Speaker 2:Wow and he and listen to this. This is cool. He said it would never go higher than 7%, ever. We know better than that and it would only affect the rich. Sound familiar.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's what that's like. That's somewhat the argument now with every program it's only going to affect the rich, it's going to be temporary and the percent cap is always 7 that we quibble over. And did he also de-segregate or resegregate the military?
Speaker 2:He resegregated the military, not only the military, but the government. The government was segregated, not segregated, was totally open to the cabinet Before him, not the cabinet, I'm sorry, but they were in the various political and career politicians in the bureaucracies. And when he became president he segregated the whole business. He sent waste relations back now probably 200 years. We've had a lot better spot if you don't have the government alone segregated.
Speaker 1:So I guess, from there to here, this is where we have the constitutional kind of crisis that we get every decade or so. I have another question In two parts. What's the right in the Constitution that we have today that you think is the most consistently under-assolved?
Speaker 2:First amendment. Several parts of the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, religion. I can't name all of them off the top of my head the freedom of speech, religion and the press.
Speaker 2:And the second one is the Second Amendment. According to my theory which I'm not sure is going to stand out, but I've been preaching it for a long time the Second Amendment says the last four words are the most important part of the Second Amendment, which says shall not be infringed. So in other words, the first sentence is we'll have a right to keep and bear arms. I can't quote it exactly, but that's what it says. The second one, shall not be infringed, which makes every gun gore on the books today unconstitutional.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's kind of the debate that I always have, even with a lot of my friends who, yeah, we all kind of come from government jobs. So I always just say what does the words shall not be infringed mean to you, and it doesn't mean that there may be a restriction that you like. And my argument is is then go get the Constitution changed Exactly.
Speaker 2:My argument, though change the Constitution. You want to change the Constitution. The Second Amendment is the only way you're going to get rid of it, except to what they keep talking about.
Speaker 1:There's no such thing as an assault rifle.
Speaker 2:You know there's no such thing as an assault rifle. You know what they always say is an assault rifle. It's not a sensible, armor-like rifle or a stand for an AR.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that was like a media agenda.
Speaker 2:Even the company that made it all big yeah, ar-15. And 15 is the model number.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think it was something funny. I think I heard you say that before when you were talking about Cain killing Abel, and you said he said he killed him with an assault rock. Yeah, he did, and it's just you know. I-.
Speaker 2:Anything you used to host somebody's an assault weapon.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:You can be an assault test.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:You could be a professional athlete or something pretty well.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and you hit somebody with a frying pan, they'll say it's an assault with a deadly weapon.
Speaker 2:Yeah, take a physical ass, dive yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:So why the right to bear arms and why the right to speak and assemble? Why are those the most attacked?
Speaker 2:Because those are the first two things that the government took to it. I'll get this right in a minute. Dictators take away from you you like to keep a bear arm. The first thing they take away from you is your guns. If you look back at history, every dictator, the first thing they've done is restrict the right to keep their arms in their countries. I mean, it's happening all over the world today.
Speaker 2:The second one is freedom of speech. If we can't talk about our government, that means more secrets, because people pressure on the government that the freedom of press, that freedom of speech. Now they've taken and demoted freedom of speech quite a bit with some of these things they say is freedom of speech? Like burning a flag is freedom of speech, which is a bunch of bullhawking. It's not freedom of speech. That's something entirely different. When you burn a flag, but they call it freedom of speech, it's not. Speech is when you, like you and me, are doing. We're talking, we're composing and getting into the press. We need a strong press and we don't have it today because of the water reasons. But one of is the Constitution's been so diluted by the Supreme Court over the years that we're no longer have a real strong connection to it.
Speaker 1:So my question to that as well is even with people like who are seen as really big conservatives, like I'm thinking about the late Justice Scalia, who seemed like as conservative as he was when he had a chance really digging to the federal government's more powerful than the state's ideology, was that, in your opinion, because they are still a part of the federal bureaucracy? At the end of the day, power corrupts absolutely Power corrupts.
Speaker 2:Absolutely that's what happens to these guys. They get in there and they've got the best intentions when they're elected, but they're corrupted so fast Because of what Trump's accurately calls the swamp. If you don't know, Washington is built in a swamp. I didn't know, that it's a swamp. They have drained the swamp to build Washington DC and they run a building back up.
Speaker 1:I just thought it was a very because the former president, no matter what people say of him, he was a salesman first and one good thing about marketing is you have to say something that it penetrates and it sticks. So when he said the swamp, I just thought a swamp moxer's eating everything.
Speaker 2:And so.
Speaker 1:I always thought it was just a perfect illustration of what DC is. All this money goes there and it disappears, and it's just these swamp moxers.
Speaker 2:In the interest of honesty. My son works for the Commerce.
Speaker 1:Department Commerce.
Speaker 2:Yeah, he's with the patent training moxer department. So I got a son who works for the swamp. I can't buy anything. All I can do is retire or die.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I guess it's nice work if you can get. Yeah, you got it. So, in the sticking to the same little thing about our history, our education, the erosion of the rights, who done it? Because nothing changes in America fast, how can we start to claw back or push back our ways to get back to the more constitutional foundations of getting more rights back? How does it happen? Does it happen in the courts? Does it happen in the schools? Does it happen by protesting? Does it happen by getting more people elected? How do we get more back to the constitutional foundations?
Speaker 2:Okay, one of the first things we can do, in my opinion, is get rid of a bunch of bureaucracies, because that's where a lot of rules and regulations come from. They don't come from Congress. Like the EPA makes this regulation, you can't have this, that or the other thing here, whether that has the effect of law. But it's not a law, it's a regulation. So we got to get rid of a bunch of bureaucracies, starting with our Department of Education. We don't need that's a state. State Education belongs to the states, which belongs to individual counties. In school, in school districts, it doesn't belong with the federal government Department of Homeland Security. We don't need that. We got too many purposes as it is. Why does the IRS agent need AR-15s? Give me a break here. And there's George Washington got by with 40 progress I think we can do with maybe 708.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it's crazy to think about it, because the Department of Homeland Security was not even around my entire lifetime no 2002. Yeah, the Department of Homeland Security came into being two years before I graduated from high school.
Speaker 2:And the Department of Education was Jimmy Carter's big deal.
Speaker 1:Now I'm going to ask you a question about two departments that I think about all the time education and environment. Because the Department of Education was Jimmy Carter's brain trust and the Environmental Protection Agency was Nixon's brain trust. So it's just like when you have these presidents come up with the Department of whatever what is it that is going behind that, and where is the opposition saying no, we don't need this or there's a better way that we can allocate these resources? Okay?
Speaker 2:First of all, EPA is not a Department of the government. It's a semi-qualsified civilian governmental bureaucracy. In which department is it in?
Speaker 1:Is it would be an energy.
Speaker 2:I think it's an energy. I think you're right, there's nothing we don't need. So to assess the good ones and progress is trying to get rid of our energy. Anyway, put us all on green energy, which is not going to work, but anyway. So it's not a bureaucracy and it is a bureaucracy and it's huge and we can get rid of it real easy. It takes a stroke of the pen, a governmental, a presidential executive order, it's gone. All those people have to find a better way to avoid starvation. Better, they didn't. But bureaucracies, you know. So that's basically how we get rid of it. But it's post-protection of water, lands and wetlands and EPA. But we've got the Bureau of Land Management for that. So why do we have the Bureau of EPA, which is Environmental Protection Agency? So it's an agency. It's not even a department. It has a lot of power, and that was Nixon and Johnson.
Speaker 1:Nixon and Johnson.
Speaker 2:Yeah, johnson was right up there next to Wilson as far as getting us in trouble.
Speaker 1:And so, when Jimmy Carter comes up with the Department of Education, coming from the peanut farms of Georgia, what was his reasoning for the Department of Education?
Speaker 2:Well, he thought education was not being too well enough modulated, not modulated, monitored by the states, school districts and stuff and he wanted somebody to come up with the core, what they call core values. I tried to think of the name of it and I can't the top of my head.
Speaker 1:I remember hearing the term core values when I was going through school.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I remember the core values. I remember the George Bush no child left behind.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I remember all those like federal things coming down and then the teacher had to respond to it. No, they're all basically the same thing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they want the government to tell the schools how to teach and what to teach. And that's what's happening with today, with all this critical race theory stuff, the walk, all of these things and the conservation things. I mean you can't teach your kids in school and you can't teach them at home anymore. They're even putting in homeschooling because states have rules which have to conform to the federal rules of homeschooling. On the Department of Education, which is just a political waste of money and manpower resources.
Speaker 1:And states already have their own versions of Department of Education's pre-Jimmy Carter. Are they popped up post-Jimmy Carter?
Speaker 2:Pre.
Speaker 1:Pre.
Speaker 2:But actually what it was more. It was more the states had the regulations and their laws on what schools were supposed to teach and classroom size and credentialing and teachers and stuff. But the main control of the schools back before Jimmy Carter was counties.
Speaker 1:Counties.
Speaker 2:And school districts. Well, it belongs.
Speaker 1:And it was actually interesting. I always think about the Department of Education only because that's my end. Goal is to either teach in high school for a few years and then move up to the college level, or you may teach high school for a few years, fall in love and never leave, you know. But and when? I used to think about what actually I wanted to teach it? Originally it was literature. I wanted to teach literature and I'd say, because I have a broad range, I can teach on anything.
Speaker 1:And then I started to watch Well, you can't really teach this, this and this, and you have this curriculum. So I said I can't do that. So I'm going to teach social studies and history, american government, so I can say whatever I want to say, teach whatever I want to teach. And then, right when I was getting around, I was like, oh, it looks like they're going for all the civics classes. So they made, they made my window, they made the window of what I was going to teach smaller and smaller. So I still have my hope in history, american government, social studies.
Speaker 2:And so it's awful studies and you can get American history and never you're gonna have to teach a fair way.
Speaker 1:Yeah, what.
Speaker 2:There are some school districts, by the way, in the South particularly, but not teaching American history after 1860.
Speaker 1:After 1860.
Speaker 2:Before 1860,.
Speaker 1:I mean Now what's.
Speaker 2:Leaking American history in 1860. America started in 1860, according to their theory.
Speaker 1:What's the? What's the reasoning between the? Is that the adding? I don't get it. I can't even reason my way.
Speaker 2:I don't even understand it myself. No part of it, though, is because of the Civil War.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:And we precursors to that.
Speaker 1:So are they saying real American history doesn't start till after the Civil War?
Speaker 2:Right the beginning of the Civil War.
Speaker 1:See, because when I think of American history I would stretch it back to the articles of the Confederacy and the British colonies and all that stuff. That's the real foundation. But then you have the actual separation from the British to pre-colonial.
Speaker 2:You know so Well, you realize that in America a third of the people were patriots.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:A third were agnostic about it, didn't care, and a third were one of the British to stay.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I find that very fascinating because even I was explaining to one of my friends, if you read, a lot of the the Puritans who who were writing about things like that even the churches in America at the time had to have, they were having vigorous discussions because a lot of the Puritans were reading about how you're supposed to submit to government and they weren't, you know they weren't. They were basically saying I'm not sure if we actually biblically could revolt from you know the crown. So yeah, even in like a church history there's a rich conversation, you know, if you're into that type of stuff, where you can go and read what they were kind of saying to each other, like you know when you need to.
Speaker 2:I think we need to be teaching that in school. So yeah, I didn't go to school, even though I went to school in the 50s and 60s.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, and I think you know it's kind of a cliche thing to say now If ones who don't know their history are destined to repeat. You know, you know the history, and so sometimes when I, when I see this ignorance. I get somewhat frustrated because I think, are they doing this on purpose? What are you trying to hide from that? That's the problem is what are they trying to hide?
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know so you know, there's so much lying and misdirection and false news out there, and I even blame Fox News for this too, because they're so they got their agenda.
Speaker 1:Mm. Hmm, I watch Fox News. I do read. I watch Fox. I read a lot of Fox articles. I don't watch MSNBC, but I what I do is I'll go to the big people that are big at the time, I'll get the podcast and I'll give them 30 minutes and by the time I kind of get the flavor of what's being said.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but I just spend a lot of time on podcasts. I spend a lot of my time on the internet.
Speaker 1:Yeah, what they have to say. Yeah, I read a lot of articles most, but but I and I I kind of understand, you know, in the foundation of, you know, when Roger Ailes founded the network with his goal, or, and and and I can somewhat respect the fact that I say I just think if you tell somebody what you are when they walk in the door, they can make their own decisions, their own decisions.
Speaker 2:Right, you know, and so Right, Robert Murdoch and Roger Ailes first started Fox News. It was really good, Mm. Hmm, they really did. Just tell us what they thought, what they said, what they said and like, oh you know if you're old enough remember Walter Conkite or not.
Speaker 1:I remember who he is, but I don't think I was old enough to watch.
Speaker 2:He was the most trusted man in America at one point Because he just said that's the way it was. He just reported the news. He didn't try to shape your views of it or anything. He had no guests, he had no pundits, he had no paddles, he had nothing, just him and the new and a piece of paper. And he read the news and then the beginning, and then they started getting too big for their bushes and too many people started watching them that they got too big for their bushes and decided that they were right and everybody else was wrong, including MSNBS, that's what I call it.
Speaker 1:Why do you get? I always call it MSNBC.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's that too, communist News Network yeah.
Speaker 1:The first time I heard that, when I was in the military and my jaw dropped, I was like what are you talking about? Because what I thought about the Communist News Network, I thought they were talking about Sputnik or Russia. Today, that's Bob.
Speaker 2:Russia today is Bob. Bob is a Russian word, that was the name of their newspaper during the Cold War, and that means truth. Oh good, what a amazing butchery that's coming out of Russia.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So when I heard people talking about it in the form of CNN, I was like, oh, that's just something pretty clever. But I kind of think that, as much as I recognize, it was going to sum up your problem that splitting in the media and hearing whatever you want to hear and us having our perspectives. I also thought it was somewhat unavoidable. Just just because of the way that conversations happen around dinner tables and society and whatnot, we eventually will start to go to people that are like us.
Speaker 2:We need to get more qualified people to run for office. You know, I did a podcast on the gentleman I know if you've seen him I can't remember the name of it now, but he had a great idea of getting good, quote-unquote white people to run for office by getting the money out of it, and basically his idea was real basic. He'd put the Democrat on one side of the platform, the Republican on the other side of the platform. The Republican would say what he had to say about his platform, what he wanted, and then the Democrat would say the same thing, except for one thing different.
Speaker 2:He'd say I disagree with everything you just said, except one We've got to get rid of the money and I will not take a single nickel from anybody except dollars and cents types of donations. I won't take any PAC money. I don't want any PAC money. I don't want any um um lobbyists coming around me. I don't want them and the Republicans would say I disagree with everything you say. But I agree with getting the money out. I do I point to the same thing and?
Speaker 1:then do it. My question is in that context is and I asked this often is what do we do then with the Supreme Court rulings when they say that the money that people give to politicians is is a part of the speech? You know that's part of their freedom of speech.
Speaker 2:And I think that's what I was saying earlier about the watering down of the free speech, which is watering it down to um. Supreme Court is not following the rules of the Supreme Court. They're supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was meant to say and there's nothing in there. The Constitution in it well, about money being a speech.
Speaker 1:Yeah, because I remember, and I guess because it was so stark when Mitt Romney said it, when he was running against Obama the second time around, and they were asking him about corporations and he says, well, corporations are people. And then you know everybody was fighting that. And then he said and they say we got to get money on. He said money is speech. And I remember thinking about um one, how much I disagree with it. But two, just because I disagree with it does not mean Mitt Romney was going to devolve himself of using his money to speak. And then I was, and then also I had the, the other kind of view. That is not only that was going to end up being the problem. The other problem was going to be if he had more money, which he did and he still does he was basically saying I get to speak more than you, you know.
Speaker 2:This is a long story, you know. The Constitution says freedom of speech, that's conversation and print, because it's got the freedom of press, which means print and speech. Okay, and they, they mostly got either now, television, radio, movies, all of that, because that's speech. But burning the flag or money is populations of people or whatever. It's just a bunch of politics trying to get power.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, I, I, um, it's always like me trying to wonder, like when I always ask about the clawing things back when we get to where you know the, the, the Republican candidate is saying the money is speech thing, I, I. That's when I started to wonder how do we get this back to where we know know, speech is speech and money is money. You know, in that the we had not just the Democratic Party but you know the Republican candidate. You know Mitt Romney saying you know money is speech. How do we whip that out where it seems like it's it weaves and ebbs and flows through both, both parties. Now you have the most liberal person in the Congress, you know Bernie Sanders saying we got to get money out, and then you have the people on the right saying no, you know money is speech, you know it's. You don't really know which bed you get to lay. You have to lay.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, why would he? Number one is a. Why not these Republicans named only? And I agree with the only thing. I agree with Bernie Sanders they would need to get the money that we need to get rid of Wall Street, k Street, get rid of the journals, not Wall Street, but the K Street, the lobbyist. I don't know how we're going to do that and there's a lot of ways to do it. They've had a lot of different finance and stuff to get rid of the lobbyists and some of them sound pretty good. Some of them sound a sneaky way to keep them but get rid of them.
Speaker 1:They say we're getting rid of them and actually keep them.
Speaker 2:So we need to get back to the basics of the Constitution. We need to get politics out of the Supreme Court because that's we got. They always say well, you got a Republican president, so you're going to report a conservative Supreme Court justice. We need to go more on the merits and the qualifications, not on the political views, which is going to be difficult because everybody has political views, whether they say they don't, they do.
Speaker 1:And it's because also the courts, wholly read, are appointed by politicians and they have Right, you know so.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I'm a big supporter of term limits.
Speaker 1:Term limits for the courts are term limits for all.
Speaker 2:okay, all of them, Even your, even your so called people in Washington working for the bureaucracies, now working for the various departments of government that have been there since Eisenhower as president.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was kind of shocked when I, you know, I was reading this book critical of Mitch McConnell called Mitch please, and it was about basically how he sold out Kentucky to a bunch of the oil and lobbyists and this and that and the third. And then so I was surprised, you know, started looking at Mitch McConnell a bit and Mitch McConnell was saying, well, I'm Marshall and Martin Luther King. And I was thinking, well, that is a long time ago, you've been in Washington since Martin Luther King.
Speaker 2:You know, and Well, we can have a, we can have a long bite and spit about it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:He got out of college and became a congressman. Yeah, I think it's To be. To be a representative, you have to be 25 years old. He was elected when he was 24.
Speaker 1:And I think at the time wasn't he the youngest elected representative? He was.
Speaker 2:He was 24 years over, a year before you, a few months before he was inaugurated as a Senate, as a congressman, he turned 25.
Speaker 1:And then Congress Congressman, former Speaker of the House, paul Ryan, was either the second or he beat by his record.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, nobody's beaten Biden yet, because Biden was 20, you have to be 25 to be a House of Representatives member. He was 24 when he was elected.
Speaker 1:So Paul Ryan, I think, got elected.
Speaker 2:Number two.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's, that's a. So if you, if you had a term limits, what would be the term limit?
Speaker 2:Uh, senators I would get. Of course I'd get the president one six year term.
Speaker 1:One six year term.
Speaker 2:I'd get the senators two six year terms Okay, and the representatives I'd give three, two year terms.
Speaker 1:And would that be the same for the state representatives and the governors and the mayor.
Speaker 2:That's. That's where that's come from. The 10th Amendment, which means what's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, belongs to the states of the people.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Which is the amendment. So that's a states rights thing and it needs to be left with the states whether or not they want term limits, and I think they should, possibly. I believe they should, but uh, what's up to the state. They need to make that decision themselves, but the federally and Supreme Court when they reach any door out of there.
Speaker 1:All right. Yeah, I don't have a. I kind of have two sets of books, types of things. Mitch McConnell said something funny a few years ago and he just he said we have term limits, they're called elections. And then I thought it was funny when he, when he said it, and I just always kind of say, well then why don't you say that for the president? Then you know, why don't you say that for the courts? If a president can and I understand you know FDR trying to pack the courts and you know being sick in office and dying, you know for it.
Speaker 2:Well, he was he was better than Wilson. Wilson had spoken office and his wife went in the country.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So because he also gave us the United Nations, in a manner of speaking, because he came up with the League of Nations.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:The pre-fricusset of the United Nations and I did a podcast on it and it is so corrupt. It is just absolutely sickening how corrupt it is.
Speaker 1:The United Nations.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but going back to what we were talking about, Roosevelt was sick in office. Reagan had the beginning of the Alzheimer's in the office. You know the last two years of his trouble years are in a really bad shape. He could still maintain fairly well but he was getting going downhill. So we had lots of presidents. We had one president who was elected and ovulated and died a month later.
Speaker 1:Wow, Benjamin Harrison.
Speaker 2:Yeah, he got in the morning. He gave a narrow-arm speech in March for his inauguration, because back then it was in March. So when he was inaugurated he gave an hour long speech and got pneumonia and died. We had all the sick presidents, and we're not talking about the ones that have some mental issues.
Speaker 2:We were talking about the Republicans and the Democrats being this I don't think there's that much difference between the two Ideologically. Yes, Well, it looks like we're going to get timed out again, but ideally they're different. They got the because of it and the progressives, but when they get into that office, there's no difference between them. They all want to raise taxes and take away our rights.
Speaker 1:Now, do you think that is because? Because what I think is because it's because of what we talked about earlier the money.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly, jimmy Carter was one of our poorest presidents. He still hasn't got any. He didn't make a lot of money, but Joe Biden was a poorest elected official in the House of Representatives. Now look at him.
Speaker 1:I was looking up Joe Biden when he was running for president the first time around and I was interested that they used to call him the senator from MB&A and it was basically because they were even Democrats saying yeah, he's owned by the credit card company.
Speaker 2:Everybody in.
Speaker 1:Delaware knows it. But if you want something from the credit card industry past, you know to take it to Joe Biden. Yeah, and I even remembered I went back to C-SPAN and watched a bunch of old videos back from when Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. She'd be on C-SPAN always yelling at Joe Biden because of you know the stuff he was doing in banking that she was saying was corrupt.
Speaker 2:Now banking is another major problem, with our government and trying to control us. If I come up with Cryptocurrency, there's been the big blueness with Cryptocurrency, which is going to be one of the most dangerous things we can do, because that gives the government control of our money and the banking. It tells us what we can have, what we can't have.
Speaker 1:And just. I think the end goal is just complete and total control over everything. They want to know what you think, what you watch, what you eat, what you say, what you fish, where you shoot, what you eat, where you go to church, how many times and why, and it starts to get frustrating as well. As you know, this person may not use the power, but this one will. I was regularly reading this libertarian blog, and it was just last year, about how many times the FBI had wiretapped people without a warrant, illegally, and it was just a little story that you know. They got caught, they did it. They promised not to do it again. Yeah, right, yes, we were wrong with your rights all these times. They'll trust us.
Speaker 2:We won't, all of us we did the poor part because of King. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:And so it's just crazy when I think about that stuff, and my biggest frustration is why does it not seem like the majority of Americans know these things are happening and are care that they are happening?
Speaker 2:Well, it's hard to say why Americans are so complicit. You know you go up to the Apogee Joe and straight and say, how do you like your congressman? They're going to say, well, I love him, he's great. Well, how about Congress next in another state? Oh, he's called off, he's a cook. We are elected the same people because yours is good, Mine is bad, mine is bad, yours is good. You know your elected officials are not co-op with everybody else's and that's how they keep getting reelected.
Speaker 1:And my thing is, I always tell people not that I'm. I just say, when I look at politicians, I look at them as if I look at a used car salesman.
Speaker 2:Actually I have no respect for the used car salesman.
Speaker 1:So I just think, like you're going to try to sell me what's under that hood, whether it's good or not, Right? So sugar in the gas thing, yeah, yeah. So I'm going to make a big flip here because you have another podcast you just started. What's that about, and what was your goal and ambitions in that one?
Speaker 2:Trauma to love. Trauma to love is about trauma, obviously, but it's helping you heal yourself. I mean, I come from a traditional proctype therapy, experiential type therapy background as a counselor. My co-host comes from a metaphysical background, but we both suffered extreme abuse as children. She has brain injuries. It's causing problems for her over the decades and we're trying to take our two techniques, blend them together for you to be able to heal yourself from any trauma you may have suffered and we're looking at. Probably 90% of the public have some type of trauma in their lives. That's what we're looking for and right now I'm looking for some guests to be on the show and some more guests. I've had a couple and I've had a couple professionals, but I'm going to get some real people on there and say this happened to me. I want to talk about it. How can I help myself? Not a 150 dollars an hour to say, take this pill, you're going to be okay. I don't believe in that.
Speaker 1:Okay, so, and is that what you saw when you were in the field, when you were doing the counseling?
Speaker 2:Not so much because I was in the private sector and I didn't see so much of this. The psychiatrists only prescribe medication. They don't do therapy anymore Psycho therapists and psychoanalysts and the people like me, counselors who do the therapy. And that's what we need. There's more peer therapy. We need people out there who are not going to be prescribing a bunch of drugs because you really don't. Some mental health issues you need medication for. I'm on a couple of them myself. Mental health issues. You know I have PTSD and major depression for a lot of reasons. One of them is my military duty and the other one was my childhood. The point is I don't need all of my meds. All of the meds they could have been good beginning. I don't need them. What I need is good, basic, fundamental, either using metaphysical techniques, which work very well, or the more traditional where my training comes in Talk therapy, experiential type stuff.
Speaker 2:And that's the purpose behind our trauma to love.
Speaker 1:I think I would 100% agree with you because I really believe in behavioral psychology. I think what I always say is a lot of my apprehension comes when the medication gets involved. Only because what I've seen, even when it comes to people that are close to me, sometimes the medication that I've seen them prescribe make them almost comatose or zombie like, and then they never get to the meat and potatoes of what actually is happening. It's like just take a little pill.
Speaker 2:I take a couple. I take three medications for my mental health issues and two of them I've got that I don't take. Very often One's in the blue and I take one. I got them but I don't take it Because I don't need them. I've got my therapy that I've had for the decades. I've got people around me that can help, you know. So that's what you need and you don't need all those medications, in my opinion, to deep you into comatose almost.
Speaker 1:And, from your experience, where does metaphysics come into bridge the gap or help in ways that it's being ignored in a lot of the more clinical based approaches?
Speaker 2:Well, I mean usually metaphysical. I'm not a little familiar with it. That would be Rosalie. Well then, rosalie, she's the one that knows that. But metaphysical brings you to looking at things from inside out. You look at the inside of you and decide this I don't like, I want to change it. And then you start working on the bleeding techniques, crystal things like that. I'm more familiar with the traditional type stuff because that's what my background is. But metaphysical is a good idea because some people can't deal with the top therapy.
Speaker 1:And how often do you guys do that program?
Speaker 2:We do it Mondays at known percentage time.
Speaker 1:And what's the name of that one? Trauma to Love. Trauma to Love it's Rides Stream.
Speaker 2:We got Twitter, Facebook and YouTube Rides Stream.
Speaker 1:So all your stuff is on YouTube and audio as well.
Speaker 2:No, I got visual too. Okay, I'm coffee time again, and Trauma to Love is all video.
Speaker 1:Okay, now we're definitely going to be checking that out as well.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, that's good. Yeah, I set that timer there just for me so I can view it. But I went in there and fixed everything to make sure it wouldn't kick us off. So I'm going to put all the links to your coffee time again, because I have that info and if you can email me the new one you just started, I'll link that in the show notes as well.
Speaker 2:Right at the moment, I haven't done a new website yet. It's still the same website, okay.
Speaker 1:It'll take you to the same place. Okay, good, good, good, because I've been going back and listening to a lot of your history things I have been. Yeah, they're pretty good, thank you. Thank you very much. All right guys. So we've been talking to Mr Dale Hutchinson, the host of his own podcast, coffee Time, again, and we want to thank him for coming on to the show.
Speaker 2:I'm very grateful to be here. We'll be talking again later. No Bye.