Published June 2, 2025, 9 a.m.
9am Vicky Davis Technocratic Communism The United Nations as an organization is world communism. The strategy to impose world communism on the people of the United States (and the other countries in this hemisphere) has been economic rather than military as the people were led to believe it would be. It's our own leaders who were the Pied Pipers leading us to this demise of the U.S. I'm working on a timeline that shows the who, when and what. 10am Daniel Richard - Daniel Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire has brought a case against the state, which claims that N.H. election laws have been illegally altered by the executive and legislative branches of the state government over the years, without the consent of the voters, thereby making the legislature’s actions unconstitutional. On Monday, October 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on their own initiative, scheduled oral arguments for November 29th, 2023 at 9am, in a highly-anticipated election law case of Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al. involving the executive and legislature branches of government repeatedly violating the voting rights of Mr. Richard, and the people of this State, by altering the mandatory election provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire established by the people by legislative fiat. This case poses the following questions. Who is qualified to voter in New Hampshire? Who is qualified to vote absentee in this State? Who is required to “sort,” “count” and certify the votes in the towns and cities? Are voting machines constitutional in N.H? Can the legislature delegate its law-making power under the State and U.S. Constitutions to an unelected body of bureaucrats (the NH Ballot Law Commission) to make election laws (including voting machine laws), and the ability to suspend State and Federal election laws? The use of vote tabulation equipment to conceal the counting of un-verified and uncertified absentee ballots and the illegal certification of the elections results. X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1YpJkBEwoldGj Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/2154871071677089 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6u78kh-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-622025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richard.html https://rumble.com/v6u78o7-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-622025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richard.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-06-02-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richard-pro-se:c BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, Vicky Davis, Daniel Richard
Good morning. Welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg, and it is the second day of June, twenty twenty five. Wow. This year gone fast. It's amazing. I hope everybody had a great weekend this weekend. We started getting into hay season and putting hay up and such. And I think we've got more wagons to come here, but kind of enjoy this time of the year. You know, the plantings going on and worked with the bees a little bit. I think all of us farmers out there have a great time getting getting things started. I wanted to start off talking about a few things, but we're going to start out with Vicki Davis with the Technocratic Tyranny. And then after that, Daniel Richard is going to be on. And he is a guy who's done a pro se case that's made it to the Supreme Court, which is quite a feat to, you know, quite honestly. I'm going to bring Vicki out a minute. We're going to just start talking about some of the nonsense that's going on out there. Morning, Vicki. How are you doing? Good morning. Fine, thank you. So I wanted to start out talking about the drone attacks from Ukraine to Russia. And I don't know if people understand how big of an issue this really is. I'm going to start out here. Hal Turner, let me grab this report a minute, he puts out some good stuff. I like to read what Hal Turner puts out. and what what really happened here was they ended up having utilizing civilian shipping containers hauled on regular commercial tractor trailers to unleash drone attacks inside russia attacking strategic bombers the containers had motorized roofs which upon receiving signal opened allowing autonomous drones powered by ai to self-deploy and attack russian bomber aircraft While Ukraine claims they hit forty-one, it doesn't look like the tally is quite that high. However, an attack like this, this comes from somebody in the Russian military sources that said, an attack like this would require months to prepare and would include a large amount of highly specific intelligence only the United States could provide. Now, this came from Russia, somebody from Russia. and would have provided it knowing full well what it was being used for. In other words, this is a U.S. facilitated attack, Ukraine would have gotten U.S. permission to carry out. This further highlights how disingenuous, this is from a Russian. disingenuous U.S. negotiations have been with Russia. Now, to understand the scope of this, of what they hit here, Ukraine officials claim the strikes caused seven billion dollars in damage, affecting thirty four percent of Russia's strategic air missile carriers. There's a lot more. I've got a file on this that I've compiled, which is kind of crazy. They had killed at least twelve soldiers and injured sixty. Now, I'm pretty extra sure that where this is going to go is they're going to go into some sort of of politician-led peace talks. And Ukraine's going to go, F you, Russia. Russia's going to go, F you, Ukraine. Negotiation's done at this point in time. Unless somebody steps in with something miraculous here, I don't know what that is going to look like. But Pretty extra sure that this is going to, someone said that it was like Russia's Pearl Harbor. So I don't know what's going to happen here, but pretty sure that we've got some interesting days ahead of us. Well, that's what I would think is that if I were a Russian general, I would say it's time to obliterate Ukraine. Days ahead. I mean, just obliterate, like you said, you know, start of World War II, only at the start of World War III. Yeah. And they've got kind of the same playbook. I mean, they do things the same way. So there is a pattern, which is already pretty well established. And the attack by Ukraine... inside Russia on Russia's military, I mean, that's grounds for war. They'd be completely justified to go after Ukraine to wipe them out totally. Well, and let's go one step further. If there was U.S. involvement in this, which you'd have to be like a slug under a rock not to see it, right? Because the amount of money that we've money laundered into Ukraine, every one of us should be absolutely furious with these neocons that have been Using war for economic reasons. I mean, this is all for money. This is what it's always been about. And right now with things in the economy kind of on a little bit of a crash course. For a crash, I was reading a few things that came out this weekend in the bond market. Potential crash is not looking good right now. So what's the next step? It's almost always into war. And furthermore, I'm aware of something called Club K cars. We had a bunch of them in the United States. And from what I understand, they didn't know where they all were at a certain point in time. If they can launch that many drones from Ukraine over into Russia, and it went deep into Russia, they went deep into Russia, how many do you think are probably already here? Oh, probably a lot. Yeah. What they're calling Club K, I swear to God, I remember when the U.S. was fighting Russia Over in the Middle East, it was Syria or Israel or whatever. But they had something called the Patriot Missiles. And the Patriot Missiles, as I recall them, looked just like the club cake. And they were a stealth weapon because they just looked like a cargo container. But, you know, they were... put onto the back of a flatbed truck and you could lift them up and aim them and, you know, shoot at the enemy. So, yeah, our government does not tell us the truth about almost anything. And anything that you read in the media, you just chalk it up as propaganda. You've got to read through, you've got to know the history behind it. And, um, and then analyze what is being told to you. Well, I got, I got to tell you, we had talked about critical thinking. Okay. So I'm the chairman of the constitution party in the state of Michigan. We had our SEC meeting this past weekend and we had some speakers that came there and there were several, several speakers that, that were there. The one group got up and immediately when they started they started talking, I was like, I'm done. I'm done right now. It was on human trafficking. And they kept bringing up things like, you know, we're working with the FBI. Uh, we're working with CPS and I, and I couldn't hold it in any longer. I'm like, how can you possibly look at us, you know, with a straight face and see this? I'm like, CPS is the largest human trafficking organization in North America. So, you know, they started right out demonizing parents, you know, it's the parents most of the time that traffic the children. So they were studying this. It seemed to me like they were studying it all up. And I hate to say it, but I can't be silent anymore. And, uh, called. called it out. I'm like, how can you, I tried to do it in an elegant way, but I'm like, how can you, how can you tell people to call CBS and the FBI? I mean, the FBI, that ship has sailed a long time ago. Who in the, who in their right mind would trust the FBI or the CIA? Oh, that's for sure. Well, the FBI built a network called InfraGard. and the idea behind infra as in infrastructure, infragard. So they made all these private sector partnerships for the private sector businesses and organizations to partner with the FBI, and that's what you call the Stasi state, you know, the... like the East German police. That's what the FBI built. And part of that network is due to what they did to our computers, what they did to our country via the computer systems of government. They basically globalized our government. The government that we have at the administrative level I don't even think they're American. They're globalized. You know, it's part of the global system. And so they don't act in the interest of America. They don't behave as Americans because they freaking aren't. They're using Americans and they're using our, our good hearts that want to believe that things are good. And unfortunately they end up capturing assets and using people to be their mouthpieces. So for example, I look at the political parties. Okay. The, the only reason why I'm on the constitution party right now is because we have to have a reason to have, we have to have ballot access to have a, responsible option outside of the criminal Republican party and the criminal criminal Democrat parties. They're criminal. They've taken foreign money. They should be abolished. They people involved should be prosecuted. They should cease to exist. The Constitution Party, since I've been involved in it, we don't take any big donations. I've never taken the PAC or the dark money, and nor will we. And speaking about that, don't give your money to a political party. I'm going to tell that to everyone. Just don't do it. Keep your money. And don't give it to a PAC. No, your family needs that money. Your family needs the money. We can't out earn them. We can't outspend them because they just print more money. So basically, the mechanism is to fundraise, to fundraise, to fundraise, to fundraise, to more fundraise, to have another party, to have another party, to have another party, and nothing gets done. I don't know. I know you've seen it. I've seen it. I haven't seen a thing change. The real power in our government is not the political system. Our Congress at this point has been neutered. They're worthless. The real political, the real power in our country is with the defense, the big defense contractors. There's about five of them. And the IT systems that allow them to run the whole damn country. And actually, it's become global under the United Nations. We don't have a country. We really don't. It's a region. But you know what? Realizing that, I'm going to give a shout out to the only reason why I'm even in politics is President Trump. Because I always figured everybody was liars, cheats, and thieves. Still do believe that in the majority of them. But when President Trump came on the scene, that's when I decided, you know what? This is somebody that seems like they've got some... actual care for the United States and to watch his care and the way that he treats people, as well as going through and tearing the systems down, this didn't happen overnight. This isn't going to turn around unless we want to complete an utter crash, which the one article that I published this weekend that I was looking at, it was a CEO of one of the major banks and He said, too, he said the bond market is going to crash. He said we're at a point of no return here, not a recession, but at a minimum, a depression. And it could be worse than it could be worse than that. He said it's just because things happen so fast right now. I think that a lot of us have been forecasting this for a while and kind of surprised that we're still hanging on at this point in time. But I really do think that President Trump and the people that are standing with him are really doing their best to right this. But with that said, every single one of us that's out there needs to join in this fight if we're going to make this thing stick, because who's going to fill the offices? Well, you know, I was totally behind Trump when he first considered running for office, which was in about two thousand twelve or something like that. It was the election before he actually ran. I got to ask you, did you watch The Apprentice when that was going on? No, no. I didn't. I don't know. I didn't. I knew about the program, but it didn't. It was Hollywood. And so I don't know. I just don't like anything Hollywood. But anyway, and then when he did run the first time, I was one hundred percent behind him. But the one thing he did that I will never forgive him for is that he said he would get us out of NAFTA. And I believed him. I trusted him. And he didn't do that. He then signed the USMCA, US-Mexico-Canada agreement. And the reason why I can't ever forgive him for that is because they've turned our country into, as you said, a region. We're not a sovereign nation state anymore. And we could have been if he'd gotten us out of the NAFTA agreement because NAFTA was the stepping stone. The way the timeline worked is that Ronald Reagan signed the La Paz Treaty in nineteen eighty three. Then in nineteen eighty six, they signed a free trade agreement with Canada. And NAFTA is what brought the three countries together in a region. And then, of course, they signed the Congress passed legislation to create the World Trade Organization. And then on September eleventh, two thousand and one. Colin Powell, he was secretary of state at the time, was down in Peru, I believe it was, signing the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which is what I think brought North and South America together into like a continental region under the United Nations system. You've got a map on the site here. I'm going to put that up a minute because it might help explain things a little bit better. There you go, world regions. Yeah. It makes sense. It really makes sense because I can't even, I think it's so big that we can't even get our arms around this. One of the things that I have some concerns over because, you know, I watch people and I watch the reactions, that sort of thing. When I saw President Trump rolling out the vaccine in the beginning there, I didn't buy his, I didn't buy what he was saying about it. there was something wrong. His reaction when he rolled that vaccine out was that he looked disgusted with the whole thing. He was completely disgusted by it. I would hope so. I could see it on his face and his demeanor. Now, I've heard several people say that there were some overriding threats. Now, I don't know this. I've never talked to him about it. This is listening to the you know, the monkey telephone chain out there a little bit. But there was enough credibility behind this that I thought it was worthy to consider. And that would be what if there was a greater threat by, say, Club K cars being out there that they were like, you either put this thing out here or we're going to destroy a city. something like that, or something that's a much greater threat that he was taking the best of two options out there. Because when he talked about that vaccine, if you go back and look at any footage of it, he was totally disgusted by what was his, that was his reaction. That was his body language. Totally and completely disgusted by what was coming out of his mouth and what he was saying. Well, that whole COVID thing, that was the attempt of the public health system to take control of our country via the healthcare system. If you scroll down on that article, you'll see a list of about ten systems. Yeah, keep going. There you go. These systems were decided upon as global systems. Global being in the sense of them being at the management level of the United Nations. Basically, the surrender of sovereignty over these systems. I don't know, there was an article just yesterday or the day before where they're reporting that The WHO, the World Health Organization, is going to take another attempt at taking control of our country via the public health system. And it would be a system in which the WHO could declare a pandemic on anything without proof, without consultation, without a damn thing. And we can't allow that. We cannot allow that. As a matter of fact, that's why I go through all this documentation. Because if you understand what's happening at the base level, nobody, nobody can argue with you because you've got the proof. You've got the receipts, as they say, and I've got the receipt. That's why I've gone back into history and documented all of this stuff. And the G-seven slash G-eight, it was G-eight for a while when Russia belonged to it, but Russia quit on it. But these are the people that defined the global systems. And people should understand that information systems are management systems. Computer systems manage people, processes, facilities. They manage things. And so while we get a lot of benefit out of the internet for a lot of things, it's the same rope that they're hanging you with. Well, the surveillance is, is just crazy. I was digging into something last night on, on a, it was an audio engineer, how easily, how easy it is for them to listen in on everything. It doesn't make any difference. They can pick, they can pick up conversations by reading vibrations off of windows. Yes, that's true. Lasers. They can pick up if you've got like like a tactile keyboard. They can pick up your the each key makes a different sound and they can they can recreate what, you know, they can recreate what you're you're saying just by just by by that, not only just having having, you know, the. the character reads on your, on, you know, whatever you type in, they can do that. And these are like old technologies. This isn't even what they have now. I got a feeling you're about three hundred years ahead of what we even know, maybe farther than that. Well, I tell you what, I worked up in Alaska in, oh, I think starting in nineteen eighty four, I worked up there and one of the corporations up there was Arco, Arco, Alaska. And I found out that they had like a five or six story building there in downtown. And this one day there were like the windows on that were all covered up, you know, and I found out that it was lead. And the reason why is exactly what you said you know they could listen from a distance through windows and vibrations and windows so what arco did they blocked their windows off while they were having um meetings you know like board meetings key men meetings and so um so that's really quite old technology to to uh point something at a window and pick up a conversation. Now your entire PC, the monitor, everything is a spy device. And I know that. I've known that for a long time. But I continue on with trying to... trying to track the history of all of this because if you know the history nobody can argue with you because you can show them where when and how Everything was done. And then you can start putting the pieces of the puzzle together. So there was an article that came out this weekend talking about the fact that Betsy DeVos is basically pairing up with Ronna Romney McDaniels. Let's not forget they want to leave that off and just call her Ronna McDaniels now to make it look like the Romney part of it has disappeared. But the point being is that all of these people are establishment. If we thought things were going to change under Biden, why would we think it's going to change under a Republican leadership? It's all the same. This is an industry. It is an industry to make money for those that are pulling the levers at the top. And they're being told what to do by the powers that be above them. The money people, the trade routes, the supply chain. And then you've got somebody like John James, who just got a five million dollar donation through DeVos. He's a Koretsu guy. He's a supply chain guy. In fact, I had somebody that told me that they used to joke about him in the military being the supply line guy. The military procurement was a big part of this. And what the Clinton administration did, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, in the reinvention of government was to basically convert the military acquisition system to being a supply chain system. And I do believe that Walmart, Home Depot, because those, not Walmart, but Home Depot, they started in Florida. And I think as they were cutting our government, cutting the cost of government, bringing in efficiency, it would have been an efficient thing to use a retail store as basically a military supply depot with a retail cover. You know, because then the materials are there, they're out there, and the military can, you know, take control anytime they need to, if there is a need. That is a really, really good point that you brought up, that anything that's out there could be a cover for an organization, a globalist organization, a military operation and such. I mean, nothing we see out there, nothing we see is as it appears, in my opinion. Oh, totally. The hospitals, take the hospitals for example. Yeah, those would be killing fields. That's exactly right. And if you notice, they changed the system so that you could have nurse practitioners and physicians assistants. And basically, at this point, they gave doctors a golden parachute out. But the lesser qualified medical professionals they will have to rely on the computer systems, the decision support systems. Well, that's a perfect setup to make the entire population of the United States subject to medical research. Now, one thing I figured that they could, and that's why they use the public health system to build the system of nationalized medical records. because what they could do, what the pharma companies could do, is analyze the medical histories of people and select research subjects behind this black curtain. You know, nobody knows. In the old days when they were doing medical research, it all centered around the physician that was running the experiment, you know, the experiment. And so if you had a lot of people that started dying, you could tie it to that research. But with nationalized medical records where they can select research subjects from all over the country, you don't know if they're running any medical experiments. Because there is no pattern that's discernible. And with the lesser qualified people giving the basically in charge of frontline treatments, they can use that decision support treatment to tell the lesser qualified what to do, what to give, what medication to give. and basically run their research from behind the curtain. Yeah, it's really disturbing. It goes back to every single one of us has to be thinking on our feet all the time, what are we actually seeing? Not what they're telling us. Disregard all of that. I don't care who it is. We have to disregard it and go, well, well, well, maybe so, but not until I... sort this out a little bit more. Well, that's why I take pains to document everything so that I can show the timeline. You know, when it started, who was behind it and what was their intent? Because it's like with the nationalized medical records. The first inquiry on that was in nineteen ninety. It was Senator John Glenn. And he asked the GAO to produce a report for him on the benefits of a nationalized medical record system for research. They thereafter changed the reason. So they never went back to the reason of research for the system. They used a bogus excuse, you know, of getting rid of paper claims. They're going to save money and all that crap. Well, I know for a fact that they started the automation of claims processing in the, uh, with Medicare claims. And I worked at blue, blue cross in, uh, Oakland when they began converting their paper claims to computers. So we've, we've had, huh? Oakland, what state? California. California. Okay. Yeah. We've had electronic processing of claims since the early nineteen seventies. And I know that for a fact because I was there. Okay. And so that was a bogus excuse, but that's the excuse that they went to rather than telling people that it was for medical research. And there are four consortiums of the large IT corporations that built the health data exchanges. And the excuse that they gave for doing that was that, well, what happens if you you know, have a medical emergency and you're allergic to penicillin or some dumbass thing like that. People need to have access to your medical records. Well, you know, I'll take my chances rather than have a nationalized system of medical records that are available to medical researchers, people like Fauci, you know, Yeah, well, to your point, everybody has access to your medical records. No, not true. Not true. They're everywhere. I mean, you can go from one system to the next to the next. And it just seems like no matter where you go, because it's all tied in. Well, yes, but that was part of the reinvention of government when they began that. And so, well, in nineteen ninety, when George Herbert Walker Bush announced the New World Order, he wasn't kidding. It was a new world order, globalization of IT systems, the interconnection of IT systems from the United States to Europe and then beyond. So do they have like this big, huge kill list out there of all of us that they want to get rid of? I would not be surprised. Yes. I would not be surprised at all. I know that it's a very, if you go to a hospital, you're taking your life in your hands, literally. Yeah, I agree with that one. I'm not, I'm not a fan, not a fan at all. In fact, In fact, I mean, we've talked about the whole cancer thing. They, you know, I went four times to that little goat rodeo and I was done with it. I just like walked out, never darkened their door again because it just, it just didn't make any sense to me that none of it made any sense. And including, you know, you can even see the psychological crap that they do to get people to, to, uh, uh, you know, feel like they need that. They need to be part of that. I've been pondering this lately because I think some of us are wired very differently. You are. I know I am too a little bit. The amount of people who are so lost and waiting for someone to approve of them so they can fit in or be recognized for things is kind of shocking to me. Oh, I completely agree. I feel so bad for the young people today. I do too. They do the most absurd and ridiculous and horrible things to get attention on the internet, you know, to make some money or to just satisfy their need for exhibitionism, you know, just for the attention. Well, here, and I mean, let's take this one step further. I see the same thing in the political parties because they act like cults where the structure is psychologically like a cult. And so, you know, people are wanting to have that to move up, constantly move up, constantly competing with each other or trying to get other people's approval, that sort of thing. Well, that's our whole business environment is compete, compete. You know, we've got to compete. Well, no, you don't. You don't. Yeah, absolutely. And it comes down, you start looking at the sin factor of it. To me, I connect it to coveting. as well as being the respecters of persons, waiting for somebody to approve of what you do. This is where you have to look at the whole system and say, like Ukraine and Russia, when I started out talking about going, here's how the conversation goes. F you, Russia. F you, Ukraine. Discussion's done. Well, all of us need to just basically be in, I don't care what anybody else's opinion is. You got to have that strength in yourself to say, I don't care if the whole world jumps off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings. This girl ain't going to be doing it. same thing like in the political field let's have another fundraiser ever another fundraiser to have another fundraiser I can just see the hypnosis coming fundraiser fundraiser we've got to have money to win no you don't that's kind of a really pathetic really they they've turned us into a nation of beggars zombies zombie beggars you know and uh You know, not thinking, why are we doing the fundraiser? I have a fundraiser. I have a fundraiser. I have a fundraiser. And look back and say, wow, this was a great party, but nothing changed. Seems kind of ignorant to me. Well, I first found that in about, I don't know, two thousand nine or ten. There was a guy, a fundraiser here for the Republican Party, and he was just raising just. mega dollars, mega bucks. And I couldn't figure out, you know, what the hell is this money for? And then I found out our senators and, you know, our House members They spend all of their time after they're elected, they spend all their time fundraising. And they pass money back and forth to each other's campaigns. Yeah. Well, they have to raise money for their chairmanships. They buy those chairmanships. You bet they do. This is absolutely. The entirety of our government is getting an office. It's all about the money. I sit back and look at this and go, where's the honor? Where's the inspiration to believe in something, to go forward and do it? Not because there's any money in it, but because it's the right thing. Where's the inspiration to do something great that our founding fathers had that laid it all on the line because they believed in it? I'm just not seeing in the political spectrum. I'm not seeing it. And I see a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing. that, that get turned very quickly into captured assets because they're not, they're not either trying so hard to fit in because they believe they're doing the right thing, that they become a captured asset and in a mouthpiece for the people that are manipulating from above. I did a post on, and I'm going to, I'm just going to bring this up a minute. I wasn't going to do that, but this is the way we go guys. It's sort of one of those things that, that, uh, We just are off the rails all the time. Hang on, let me look for it here. It's the only way to be. There's no schedule here. There's no itinerary. There's no schedule. It's like, well, what are we going to talk about today? I don't know. Let's figure it out as we go. I had several people that reposted this, too. Here are ten common logical fallacies to recognize to avoid manipulation with brief explanations. And I thought this was kind of important because this is what I see. Let's just say, oh, I don't know. When you look at the amendments that are being proposed out there and these ridiculous proposals and such, Look at the message behind these things, these efforts. It's absolutely manipulation. They give you one option, and if you're not with them, you're against it. So ad hominem, number one, attacking a person's character instead of their argument. Example, you can't trust this person. They're not a real Republican or whatever it may be. Recognize it to focus on the argument, not the person. And the issues, you know, I always say go to the issues. You can connect the dots between people. And if you watch them, they'll work together as a pack. They almost always work as a pack. Say you've got DeVos now working with Romney. You've got the Bush mafia out there. You've got Whitmer working with Granholm and all the connections to the energy sector out there. They work like a pack. They're predators. Straw man. Number two, representing someone's argument to make it easier or misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. They want gun control. They want you to ban all guns. Spot that to ensure that you address the actual position. I've been misquoted so many times that I can't even put a number to it. They'll say, oh, Brandenburg doesn't like blah, blah, blah. No, that's not true. They're just, they're talking out their behinds. Number three, false dilemma. Presenting only two options when more exists. Republican, Democratic. Oh, they do that. That is their modus operandi. And this is the other thing. You're either with us or you're against us. There's that little cult club. Don't speak out or we're going to kick you to the curb. Well, maybe that's a good thing. I don't see that as being a bad thing. It's like a badge of honor when they kick you to the curb. Look for unstated alternatives to avoid being cornered, like the Constitution Party in the state of Michigan. There you go. I'm going to put a shameless plug in there. Number four, slippery slope. Claiming one action will inevitably... lead to extreme consequences. Example, if we allow this law, we'll end up in a dictatorship. Demand evidence for casual leaks. They do it all the time. Number five, appeal to emotion. All right. So my background is in marketing, right? Marketing and communication that if you go way back, it was in, um, in, uh, marketing, communication design. I had an ad agencies. Um, I did, I did a lot of, of that sort of thing. I produced TV commercials and radio commercials and, and, uh, tried to try to help people's businesses thrive. That's what I did. So, and, and I, and I really liked working with small businesses and people that I actually knew. I knew the, the, how hard they worked to put these businesses together and how invested they were into these businesses for, for making real good change. I don't, I, I, I've never worked in nor I would work with people that are just in it for self-gain because I just wouldn't last in that climate because as mouthy as I am, I call them out for it. Well, there you go. Boom. There goes Brandenburg. She's out the door. No more work for her. And that's okay. Badge of honor. Number five, appeal to emotion. Using feelings to persuade instead of facts. Example, think of the children suffering if we don't act. Check for solid reasoning behind the emotional pleas. The latest one I got when I went to head with somebody was, well, you know how many old people are going to lose their homes if we don't repeal property taxes? Well, guess what? It's just a shift in tax. They still could lose their homes or everything else because the tax burden is going to be as high or higher because they're diffusing it. As they as they put it up, why don't we talk about the real issue? The fact that almost all the taxes that they're that they're that they're extorting out of it are unconstitutional and go out there and cut the head off the snake and rip it out by the roots instead of misleading people. That's for sure. You've got to go. You've got to go for the root. Yeah, if you're going to do something, why put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound that's going to matter nada and couldn't, in fact, create a bigger problem? Number six, bandwagon. Arguing something is right because many believe it. Example, everyone's investing in this stock, so it's safe. Verify claims independently of popularity. That popularity contest thing, is done over. We're done with this, okay? It has to be done. Oh, this person supported me, so I'm going to support that person. Really? Maybe this was a setup from the beginning. Number seven, hasty generalization. Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence. Example, I met one rude New Yorker, so they're all rude. Or I met one redneck Michigander. So they're all rednecks and they're all stupid. I tell you what, I would grab a table in the local coffee shop with farmers to solve all the problems that'd be done in about two weeks because they don't put up with that nonsense. So anyhow, eight, post hoc ergo propter hoc, assuming because one thing follows another, it caused it. Example, I wore this shirt And we won, so it's lucky. So question casual connections because that one thing that doesn't necessarily logically lead to another. There may be other forces outside of it. And not doing a thorough... assessment is where we kind of get into these problems. The example is that if we don't look at what led up to this, as you and I are doing on Mondays, we really can't see that. There may be like a bait over here. This is the firefly thing that I keep talking about. Look over here where we're screwing you over here because it happens all the time. That's for sure. That's absolutely true. Number nine, Red Herring, introducing irrelevant topics to distract from the issue. Example, why worry about pollution when jobs are at stake? Stay focused on the original point. The original point may be something that is completely off base with either or all sides of the argument. A thorough questioning needs to be done on all things. And number ten, appeal to authority. Rely on a figure's status without evidence. For example, well, this person endorses it, so it's got to work. Check for credible, relevant expertise. That's why they expected us to follow the stars. These people would know. They're in front of the camera and they come out, you know, they're actors. Of course they know because they know how to present themselves as they know instead of having a real discussion. I'm always shocked at this. I also, Eric Tilton, who's a good friend of mine, Cognitive Carbon, posted a source underneath that post that I did, the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation. And there's three thousand fallacies and errors, methods of crooked thinking, grouped by category of misrepresentation that he posted. So I want to thank Cognitive Carbon. If you don't watch him on on X or you don't subscribe, subscribe to his stuff. He's, he's a great person. He, he is truly one of the most genuine, good people that I can say I've ever met in my entire life. And I know him very, very well. And his fiance, Clarity Sage. I love them intensely there. They are two of the most genuine, nicest people you will ever meet in your, in their life, in your life. Well, uh, One thing people should do is anytime you hear a politician propose something, think to yourself, now, how would I solve that problem that he defined? And if you do that, then you'll soon see that. his whole package of propaganda is just nothing but BS. Then you can look at his motivations. Who's behind him? Who's pushing this? Who's promoting it? Because most of the solutions, they want to do a one-size-fits-all for an entire country, and that's really not the way life works. You know, when you have Three hundred million people. I remember when they first started work, you know, the issues with schools began coming to the fore. And Idaho had good schools. They really did. But there were other schools in other places that were really poor. Well, okay, fix those schools, leave our schools alone, but they didn't do that. LBJ, of course, started the nationalization of the K-twelve schools with the ESEA was the acronym of it. And almost at the bottom of the legislation, it mentioned gathering statistics. And that's when they started building the federal computer system, first by gathering up all of the statistics, you know, the schools, where they are, you know, who's running them, all of that stuff. And from that small core of a statistical system, they built the Federal Department of Education Statistics. And I believe they use those statistics really to destroy our schools, not to help the schools, but to destroy the schools. It's all capture. It's capturing the kids. It's capturing minds. It's capturing people to believe in things that are not true and becoming their mouthpiece and microphone. It's the fifth generation warfare stuff in this information age, which is where the battle's really being fought. And God help us all. that we never go into a civil war, kinetic war, any type whatsoever, because the type of technologies that they have right now, I don't think people are prepared for how absolutely brutal it would be. Oh, definitely would be brutal. And that's why the Democrats, I think it's becoming more well-known now that the Democrat leaders of cities are, are facilitating the importation of gang members from South America. And why is that? So that they can wage war on their citizenry or the businesses in downtown. I mean, you know, if you think of those gang members as a weapons system, you can point them at anybody, right? Yeah, right. Well, and they've got a way to aerosolize fentanyl. And deploy that above. Think about this. If they aerosolize fentanyl, and especially if you look at things like Trank, which they combine it with, I think, a horse tranquilizer. Not an expert on it, just what I've heard and such. But they can aerosolize fentanyl. There's enough that have come into this nation to kill the entire population, what, I don't know, ten times over. So if they could aerosolize that and you've got drones up there running around, I was awake the other night about a week and a half ago or so I've got, I took pictures of it, but I was, I was just, I don't know. It was in the, it was in the middle of the night. I don't sleep a lot. So if I do, if I get a good night's sleep, it's a good day, but I usually have too much going on in my head. And then I start researching things and then it's all over for me. I'm going to be up all night. So I looked out, I looked out the window and, And there was it was odd. There was a couple of aircraft that were hanging up in the air a ways away. And so I was I was checking. I was checking, checking them out and watching. And I'm like, oh, it must be helicopter or something because flight flight pattern was too stable. Then as I watched it, I'm like. I looked it up on the flight tracker. Nope, not an aircraft. There's nothing on the radar, nothing at all. So, of course, I start looking around a little bit and watching it. And it was absolutely a drone because it would make these quick alterations. Okay. There's no way, even a helicopter couldn't make it. I actually went outside to listen to it if I could hear anything around it, but no, it's a drone. So that means that we're going to go into a type of warfare, if we ever do, God help us, that will be something that we're not familiar with. And years ago, I heard somebody say that they could fry Xi in his bed with his Russian whore. That was the exact words that were said. where he stands through the technology they have just going right through, you know, however they do it. And nobody would. So there's a lot going on. I mean, if they wanted to change things quickly, they would. I think that probably the war that we're in right now is a lot of it just optics. I think the war we're in right now was actually already won before it started. And we're in the cleanup right now. That's what I do believe. And it looks like it's going global, but I'm not sure it is. I'm wondering if a lot of this is to expose these agendas, because if they would have gone in and won this thing right off the bat, as absolutely indoctrinated as the people are, we would have destroyed, the human beings would have destroyed everything just because they didn't have the ability to know what was going on, question things and do things in a different way. That's purely Donna Brandenburg's take on it. I can't say that anybody else has inputted substantially into this. Of course, I listen to all sources, but it makes a lot of sense to me that we already won the war before it started. And if there weren't conflict there, the people would have been bored because they were used to conflict. People thrive on conflict. They thrive on things going wrong. Until we end the spiritual problem we have in this nation, we're going to be in trouble. And The only way to do that is turn back to God and go for peace. Go for peace. Sometimes it's peace through strength, but peace. Yeah. Well, there are actually two worlds. There is the fantasy world that's created by, I don't know if you know this or not, but in the nineteen nineties, I believe it was, They basically deregulated our whole country. And the reason for the deregulation was so that they could become a part of the, as I called it, with the Soviet socialist regions of the United Nations, so that we could become the free trade area of the Americas. No longer a nation state, but part of a continental region. They allowed the, they deregulated media, allowed about six corporations to totally monopolize the media. You know, and every year in Sun Valley, there is a media conference of the who's who, and I suppose they all get together to strategize what the propaganda, you know, saying where are we in this thing and to strategize the propaganda for the coming year. Disney, by the way, is a big part of that. They're one of the six. Disney's owned by ABC, isn't it? I'm not sure what the status is at this point. Well, and I think a lot of these things have been merged and that sort of thing. Well, you remember when AOL bought Time Warner, right? That was part of the consolidation of the media so that they could control the message. Well, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. So if there's any glitch in anything coming up, whether it be in electric grid, which that really seems to be a big topic after especially. Oh, you bet it is. It's the transmission lines. It's the transmission is where they've got the United States basically kneecapped. Yeah. And I've done quite a lot of work on the transmission grid. Again, it was deregulation. They got the utility companies to basically set aside their ownership of the transmission grid through their territory so that they could link it up into a national grid. Well, if you think about the part that electricity plays in our life, they've got you by the gonads. And that's the situation that we're in. And yes, the communist Chinese are involved in our tele transmission grid. They're involved in our electric grid. They're involved in everything. I'm going to just throw this out there just as an idea. We always have to have a boogeyman. It's either Russia, it's China, it's something else like that. I think that it's a broader thing or it's a step above all of the countries because the countries are not geographic anymore. There's not a geographic boundary that's been held to across the globe, which is part of the destruction that they've had of the globe. is destroying the nations and the boundaries and the borders. So I think there's another layer there. It's the UN. It's the UN. And it's not the moron who sits as the secretary general. It's always the second or third layer. could it be another layer? I mean, could there be another layer there that's pulling the strings? Absolutely. Yes. I think that's what, and we're looking at countries because we're familiar with it, but we go back to ripping the problem out by the root, going to the root of the problem and ripping it out and or cutting the head off the snake. We're busy looking at Other things, well, if we went to the core of the problem and ripped it out by the roots, instead of these little issues that are distractions, they're just, well, we're doing something. No, you're not doing anything. We're just moving from this position here to this position. We're doing lateral moves. We're not doing substantial moves and they're sucking people into thinking that they're really doing something when it needs to go so much deeper than what we can even imagine. Just like the grid going out. If the grid goes out, I'm going to question who did it, if it was the good guys or the bad guys. I would think it was, I would hope it was the good guys, you know, because that sort of a change could, would really, communities would come together. People can figure this sort of thing out. But the problem that they would have is their global systems would absolutely go up in one great big, you know, fireball burning pile of ashes, right? I don't think these people care. I think their ultimate agenda is depopulation and, you know, whatever it takes to get there, you know, whether that's a drug like COVID or like COVID or a disease like COVID- or shutting down the grid, the transmission grid. I don't think they care. I think their objective is depopulation, and that's it. Well, I think that was the objective. I'm hoping that the objective now changed since President Trump being on the scene and the good guys that are fighting, because I do believe that there's good guys out there, but they're not going to come out and say, well, boys and girls, today we're going to do this, and the bad guys will be on the run. No, no. The agenda, it started... I attribute it to the British and their livery company system, which is service companies. And the building of associations that when the guilds first started, they were just individual tradesmen, but they've kept this service company model for over a thousand years. that we're talking about. And at this point, like the associations of insurance companies and the associations of banks, bankers just joined the livery company system. So you have these hugely powerful associations of the most powerful and wealthy corporations in the world. And they're the ones that are funding and leading all of this. It's become a world that is about nothing but money. Everything is about money, you know, as it's presented to us. But behind that curtain are the people that want depopulation. Like Ted Turner, Ted Turner. There are too many people using too much stuff Ted Turner is just, he's out of his freaking mind. Oh, you know what? I would, I would encourage him to be the first one to jump off the planet then because, well, really, I, you know, go say, yeah, yeah. It's like, there's too many people. So let's, let's get rid of people, but I'm okay to stay here. You know, it's like, are you kidding me? I'm pretty extra sure that, uh, that, uh, you don't get to stand apart, you know, and what a, what a, what a totally bankrupt mindset. I absolutely. Well, he's crazy. I mean, you can't you can't get beyond the fact that I think he's bipolar and he really does go off the rails. I'm going to go one step further. How about demon possessed? When you start talking about lack of of sanctity of life of any type. You got a problem, especially when they trade that. And the most precious things we have are those things that are invisible. And when you turn away from that of honor, being inspired to do something because it's a great thing to do, making the world more beautiful, taking care of people. I mean, the example of Jesus washing people's feet, service, you know, being okay with being the lowest of the low. There is great honor in shoveling horse manure. I'm going to tell you that. You know, doing those things that nobody else wants to do and or... you know, that holds society together. All of the hours that moms and dads put into raising another human being, what higher calling could a person actually have? It's amazing. Or, you know, I mean, there's so many good things that we can do, but money, focus on money and you'll lose your soul and lose it quick. I feel sorry for those people that that's all they live for. And that is their identity. It's sad. Talk about losing your soul. That right there is it. Uh-huh. Yeah. A question about it. Well, how about this? I look forward to talking to you next week again. I've got Daniel sitting back there. Hi, Daniel. And so let's... Yeah, I think it's so important to talk about this. And then instilling and inspiring people to reach for those things that are full of honor and inspiring them to do great things, not for money, but because their heart is into it. And when you do that, you have no fear. There's no backing away from those issues. And then you've really got something. I totally agree. So any last words here? Nope. I just always look forward to talking to you. I love talking with you. It's like biting into the meat of things. I'm going to tell you what. It's like even going after things like, here, I'll bring your site up here, technocratictyranny.com. in looking at all the documentation that Vicki's done. If you haven't got on her site and you want to spend like the next fifty years crawling through information and still not getting your arms around five percent of it, this is a great place. And there's resources and all sorts of things that you've compiled. I mean, it's amazing. so but I'm always honored to talk to you because you're not just talking it you're doing it and and I find that to be absolutely wonderful and charming so all right guys I'm going to go to a quick a quick uh let me see I bring my my tools up here um we're going to go to a quick one minute break And I'll be back with Daniel Richard. And this is another way. This is the way we fix things. As we get in there, we hammer it out. We hold them accountable. No matter who's in office, we need to have mechanisms and processes for holding them accountable. We have that. We've got to employ that. So see you next month. And thanks for being on, Vicki. Here we go, guys. Good morning and welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It is the second day of June, twenty twenty five. And welcome to our show. I'm going to bring Daniel on right away. Hey, Daniel, how are you doing? Good. How are you doing? Great. Doing great. You have a good weekend. I did. I did. Awesome. So what are we going to be talking about today? Let's jump right into it. Yeah, I want to pick up where I left off last week and talk about redress of grievances and what are the five ways by which we, the people, left in place the manner in which we can control our government to hold them accountable. I heard someone say the other day, you know, the famous quote, a government of the people, by the people, for the people, that we are a representative form of government. That is true. But those public officials in a constitutional republic, what are the limits of their power? Can they simply do whatever they think is good for us? No, they can't. There's a thing called the Bill of Rights. And so the Bill of Rights is the limit of the, it's a no-go zone for any of our public servants. They don't understand this. And so I've been trying to, reinforce this over and over again, the issue of people not understanding our government is completely out of control. They've removed the five fundamental elements by which redress of grievances to control your public officials. First and foremost, we know it is the First Amendment, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. So this is also codified in all your state constitutions. So in New Hampshire, that right to redress the grievances is exactly that. The people have a right to assemble, consult upon the common good, give instructions to the representatives. Imagine that, to give them instructions that they have to obey. That very issue was debated when the U.S. Bill of Rights was being debated itself. And one of the concerns of some of the framers were, if we give the people, if we allow the people to maintain their authority to give instructions to the representatives, we would be bound by those instructions. They didn't like that. So the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't as strong as your state constitution. But I digress. So... That very issue was the basis of my first lawsuit that I took to the state Supreme Court. What happened was I filed a remonstrance. Back up a second. There are two ways by which you can redress your grievances before your state legislature. Number one, you can petition them. You can ask them to do something that they are constitutionally authorized to do on your behalf. build a new bridge, put in a new road, build a new courthouse, all the things that affect the public policy capacity of those enumerated powers. And so that whole process is supposed to be by petition. And I found it fascinating in my research and my litigation, I found that from From the pre-colonial period, let me rephrase that, from the period before the revolution up until almost a hundred and eighty years total, I found in the archives eighteen thousand petitions and remonstrances for redress of grievances. And so there was this usage in custom that's part of our heritage. And the second part of that word or the second part of redress is to remonstrate, to protest, to give a stern rebuke and demand that the government repeal something it had no authority to do. I'll give your audience two really good examples. The first one, which is relevant today, is the Navigation and Commerce Act of seventeen eighty five or seventeen eighty four went into effect in seventeen eighty five. And that was the ability for merchants to do business with paper money. See, they already knew about inflation and quantitative easing and printing more money. It's nothing new under the sun, as King Solomon said. Right. So. They protested. They said, look, we don't want a whole bunch of people wrote this, drafted this remonstrance. They signed it. It was like forty some odd people who signed it and said, look, this law should be struck down because we, the people of New Hampshire, do not want to do business or allow merchants to use a medium of exchange of a depreciating asset. Right. Paper money. And within that remonstrance, so that caused the legislature to assemble as a body of the whole because it takes both the House and the Senate to pass a law or to repeal a law. So that body said, okay, we're going to assemble. Yep, we find that there's sufficient cause to establish a special committee. Special committee members of both House and Senate assembled. They said, yeah, we got a problem. We agree. And they passed the Coinage Act, which set up a standard for gold and silver specie and a depreciation schedule for paper money that had been used during the revolution to pay for all kinds of things. So that was the first remonstrance in New Hampshire. I found the second one, which is really fascinating, which is your state government acting on behalf of the people, telling the federal government that it can do what it wants to do. This is something you don't hear about anymore. And this is a fascinating story, too. what the governments of the colonies did to motivate some of these merchants, these sea captains and these boats, is to turn them into pirates. And they gave them what we refer to now as, I think the concept is letters of mark. Letters of mark were drafted for targeting all the commercial vessels coming in to support the British Army and the British Navy. And so this is what they did. So a sea captain from New Hampshire had successfully seized a lot of British merchants. And as his compensation, he got to keep the bounty of his seizures. And so when the U.S. Congress came to be after the U.S. Constitution was passed in seventeen eighty eight, they went ahead and tried to pass a retrospective law trying to backdate the ability for them to take his property. And the state said, no, no, no, no, no. You can't do this. Number one, retrospective laws are unconstitutional. Secondarily, the the the contract that the state made with the, with the boat captain predates the constitution. So you can't retrospectively say, well, you know, we're going to nullify that old contract and go ahead and take his stuff. But those are two really good examples of why a remonstrance is used. So that's what I did. I discovered that, gee, it doesn't exist anymore. Right? So I, I filed the first remonstrance the state legislature had seen in a hundred and fifty years. And it led to a lot of chaos. It led to the, at the time the Democrats had had the majority in the house, in the New Hampshire house. And at first they ignored me. And then I called their legal counsel. And they got nervous. So they brought me in. Mr. Richard, would you come in and talk to us? We'd like to resolve this. Of course you would, because you violated my rights by simply summarily deciding, gee, we don't like what you're complaining about. You know what I was complaining about? Election law. Election law. Surprise, surprise. They sure don't want to see that one righted, do they? No, no, they didn't want to see that at all. But the problem was, and this is really disgusting, and this goes on everywhere where we simply, they don't listen to us anymore. Once they secure your consent by the illusion of a choice, we don't have elections anymore. We have selections. And so once they secure your consent based on the party platform, uh, we'll come back to that, but that's, that's what they didn't want to deal with. And so I went in and had a meeting with them and basically they said, look, you missed the cutoff. The only way that you can get a law repealed is to vote the bums out and get a super majority to come in and repeal a bad law. But here was the kicker. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate were making this decision. The reason most of your original states had their legislative bodies were called general courts, not only was it a carryover from the colonial period, but it was also a very important part about that they were to sit in judgment of what public policy ought to be. And so... this, they, again, they didn't want to do this. So they said, ah, you know, this has fallen out of favor. Your right to redress of grievances has fallen out of favor. The legislature has provided you with special committees, standing committees that will now resolve your issues. So we no longer have to do that, but here's the kicker. Do you think your president of the Senate or the Speaker of the House should be in charge of deciding whether they like or dislike something you're complaining about? Instead of letting your representative body make that decision, shouldn't the general court make that decision and not a political speaker or political president of the Senate? Of course not. But that was their argument, that it had fallen out of favor. And they actually had the nerve to say that in the legal process that followed. They actually said it. They actually said it and argued it all the way to the state Supreme Court that this is no longer a right that you need. Okay. And my response today, and it was then, was if we no longer have the right to redress of grievances, if that right has fallen out of favor, so has your authority. We don't need you anymore, right? Exactly what do we need you for if you're not willing to do that which you need? So that's the first fundamental issue. Took it all the way to the Supreme Court. And so for the Supreme Court to protect the government that hired them They called my grievance a political question. Have you ever heard of the term justicability? I have not. Something that is justicable is something that is reviewable by a court of law because it's a question of law. not a question of political opinion. So something that's non-justicable is something, and forgive me, I know that one of the comments of my last appearance was, is that I had something out of context, the home rule question. We'll come back to that later. But so please forgive me for any accuracy deficiencies here. So I'm all just running off of memory here. But either way, they did not want to do this. And so they brought me into their office and I had to deal with the Speaker, excuse me, in the Speaker's office and had the Clerk of the House, the Legal Counsel for the House of Representatives, also the Chief of Staff, and During this back and forth, one of them said, listen, this is the way you've got to do it. You've got to get a representative to bring your petition forward. And that timeline has passed. Oh, so sorry, you're too late. And one of my representatives got really upset with the legal counsel for the House. I'm sorry, for the chief of staff and attorney, and responded by, and I'm going to imitate him. His name was Dick Marple. He's no longer with us. He was a great patriot. But in his old gruff voice, he stood up in protest. He said... That is ridiculous. My constituent is not a member of the House of Representatives. Those rules apply to us and they don't apply to him because he has constitutional rights. And he was absolutely right. And so, but we ended up with the meeting not going and resolving anything. which would lead me to filing my first lawsuit, took me to the superior court for the second time. And then I took it all the way to the Supreme court. And like I said, the Supreme court in order to protect the political class said, we can't involve, we can't render an opinion here because it's a political question. You have to deal with the legislature. So that was step number. That was the first thing with petitioning your government. The next one that we know very well is voting. Well, how can we fix our problems if the reason for the petition for the remonstrance for redress of grievances won't even be heard? You won't even address the fact that our election process is broken. It's completely fraudulent and broken. So that's number two. Number three is the amendment process. Who has the authority to amend your state constitution? The people. Why? Because the people are sovereign, right? We inverted once the Republic came to be under, after the Revolutionary War, all the states wrote constitutions, right? They declared that we are going to invert the paradigm. The king is no longer the sovereign. The king is no longer the author of the laws of the land, the laws that govern the social compact. And so they went ahead and, you know, again, they don't want to deal with this. So I go through this whole process and It's just a nightmare. It's just disgusting. So from there I went to my next phase. My next phase was to actually file an election lawsuit, which we'll talk about in a few minutes. So that's the basis of my current litigation that I'm involved with right now. I'm headed back to the state Supreme court for a third time now. Um, So we have petition for redress or grievance, the election process, the amendment process. And this is, if I could convey anything to all Americans, is this fundamental fact. Too many times we are always talking about the problems that we face. And with most of us unaware that the fundamental issue is if the people did not consent to amending the state constitution to give your public officials more authority, they can't unilaterally just make it up. That's what they're doing now. This is how we go from a few hundred statutes to tens of thousands of statutes and legislation all over the United States. Because they fool the American people that representative government means that we can simply live with whatever they make up. Completely void of knowledge of the source of their authority and the limits of their power. They don't know this. And so I'll give you an example. Our Republican Party platform in New Hampshire is brilliant. It's beautiful. All the way to the part where you get into education. Because see, they believe that public education as we know it today is fine. That's another conversation, but they believe that that's fine. Then the next part is they go and the Democrats do the same thing, right? They tell you what their party platform is. It's in blue. The Republicans, it's in red. And then they get onto the next part. If you elect Republicans or Democrats, this is what we're going to do when we get to get to the state legislature. And this is where the problem begins because see, once they fooled you into believing that they're going to uphold these principles, they're specifically the Republicans simply think they're better at their big government than the Democrats. And they act no differently for the same reason, right? This is why the constitution party has come to light. When I spoke at your event, you know what I found at your event? A whole bunch of Republicans who are really pissed off at the Republican Party who are screaming, you're ignoring the Constitution. You're ignoring the Constitution. That was a great meeting, wasn't it? Because the Constitution Party, you have people that are... They're they're about the law, not the personalities. Right. There's a huge difference between the major parties and a minor party that literally lives on principle, the principle and on law. A huge difference. And the discussions are amazing. I mean, I loved I loved when you were speaking there because it was like, wow, this is this is amazing. We actually have speakers that know what they're talking about, such as yourself. And it was fantastic. And I was really glad to meet you. Well, thank you for that. And so let's move from the... Petition, elections, amendment. I love telling the story. In the year, the New Hampshire legislature, which has the constitutional authority to make recommendations to the people that you should give us more power. They proposed, I'm going to focus on five changes to the government just to consolidate the conversation. First, we have a five member executive council. We don't have a Lieutenant governor. So we have a five-member executive council as a check on the executive branch. They're part of the executive branch, but they tie the governor's hands by getting permission from the council. So they proposed an amendment. Let's get rid of the five-member executive council. That was question number one. Number two, should we, in its place, create an office of lieutenant governor? Number three, should we create a department of agriculture? Agriculture is thousands of years old, right, from our foundation. and beyond. So the Department of Agriculture, Department of Railroad. And then I love this one, a Department of Education and seven other provisions. They woke up the next morning and the people said, no, we're not giving you more power. How do we have a Department of Education today? We went around. What you find in the twentieth century, if you do the research that I've done, what I discovered was we had relatively minor changes to both the U.S. Constitution, not minor with the Fourteenth Amendment in subsequent, but we have relatively few changes compared to the twentieth century. In the twentieth century, you find a habitual and repetitive pattern of simply where the legislature by dominant majority rule acts like a democracy. And they pass whatever they want. And they grow governmental power. We've been on this growth cycle for more than a hundred years, right? It just doesn't want to stop. And it's destroying us. If we don't stop this one fundamental flaw, we are doomed. We won't survive because the consequences of all of this. But either way, that's the amendment process. And that's why what I told your audience last week, the very first sentence in the state constitution is, All government, the second part, all government of right, not some, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in their consent and established for the general good. Key, established by the people, formed by their consent. And why the last sentence in the state constitution reaffirms that only the people can make that change. Well, that nullifies all of this massive growth once we get back to fundamental principles. So I've covered three. Let's get to the fourth one. The fourth one is the courts of law. The courts of law are supposed to be where we're supposed to be able to get redress of legal controversies, right? They're supposed to answer questions. We talk about judicial review. Judicial review didn't begin with Marbury versus Madison. I don't like what it's turned into, but it didn't begin there. Many people want to give justice John Marshall credit for that. It was going on in the States prior as colonial entities. So it didn't begin there. It did actually begin in colonial America. So, but again, if our judiciary is broken, so now we've been through four petition remonstrance. Number one, the, uh, onto the election process, the amendment process, the courts of law, and finally, one of my favorites that's not talked about anymore, the common law grand jury process. The common law grand jury process was supposed to do things, if you read the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it says that you can't lose your life, liberty, or property without a presentment or an indictment. of a grand jury. What is the presentment power? Very not talked about. Presentment power looks like this. Under the new constitution of New Hampshire, they put in place that the citizens themselves would have a special election every year to fulfill that need. So just like a regular election or a special election to replace a retiring or deceased member of the House or the Senate, when we go to replace a public official where there's a vacancy. And this process put in place the, I'm sorry, I lost my way. The petition, where was I Donna? I'm just listening here. I'm, I'm, I'm not sure where you're going. Number five, presentment power. Number five, presentment power. I'm moving ahead too fast. This is one of my problems. My brain works faster than I can think, than I can talk sometimes. So the presentment power. There's a lot of information to go over because we're so far off base with how the nations run that, that, it takes a while to understand it because there's so much. It's not like there's one thing wrong. There's a boatload of things that are wrong in the way the nation's being run right now. So think of it this way. You have Court, the clerk of the court in every county is the custodian of all of the, he receives all of the applications, the petitions for litigation, right? So as the clerk, he would tell the judge, this is our caseload. This is how many jurors we need. And the judge would sign the order and it would go out to all of the within the county would go out to the population and they would call for a special election to meet that demand. And so the people would elect amongst themselves their own citizen grand jury. And so once they did so, and I love this part, if a member of the community, one of the citizens, did not want to fulfill his constitutional duty of contributing his support in a manner of public service to hold government in check, he would have to convince those in attendance. Remember, this was done at the local town hall. The year is seventeen ninety two when this comes to be. He would have to convince his fellow man why he shouldn't serve. Instead of the prosecutor dismissing people from the jury because they're stacking those juries in so that they get the favorable outcome, which is absolutely wrong. Right, to rubber stamp the prosecution piece of the second part, the indictment process. That's what our grand juries have become, simply a rubber stamp for the prosecutor because they've eliminated these processes. So let's talk about presentment power. The first one is that the government is able, or your citizen grand jury is able to investigate whatever it wants, whatever it wants to assure us that the government is working properly. And fascinatingly enough, Tardiness and not participating in the public school of the day, which was a Christian establishment. And so if you didn't show up or if you didn't ensure that your children were being educated, not demanding where they go, but rather that they were receiving an education, the grand jury could ensure that, hey, your child is being deprived of the education that you have a biblical responsibility to follow through on. So that's number one. Number two is if it finds that there's a problem with a local official. But the problem isn't criminal, it isn't negligent, but rather it's oversight. Great example is the state of Florida at the turn of the century. A local grand jury found that the tax collector was only keeping his collected tax revenue behind one locked door. And it wasn't in a safe. So the grand jury wrote up a recommendation and said, hey, the county tax collector is doing a good job, but we believe that we should secure our money in a better way. And they recommended that we buy a safe, okay? So that safe led to, that led to them making this recommendation and ordering a corrective action. The legislature took it upon, they bought a safe. Next is fraud. if the grand jury finds that your public official is borderline ethics violation, borderline criminal, that it requires either a letter of reprimand a letter of censure, or removal or impeachment from office. It could make those recommendations too. Again, they simply present. That's why it's called the presentment power. They simply present those issues to the proper party that has the authority to create a remedy. So that grand jury process then led to the next step. If in fact, and by the way, all of this was done to protect the identity. That way they could investigate whatever they wanted to. And if there was no basis for the allegation, it would ensure the government was working properly without defaming someone or causing harm to someone's reputation. If it goes one step further and it does in fact find that it believes, because they're not made up lawyers, they're made up of local citizens. If they believe that a crime has in fact been committed, what do they do then? They go ahead and make a presentment to the local county prosecutor and he evaluates the case and he decides whether there's enough in the presentment to move forward and then move forward to get an indictment. But that's up to the county prosecutor. None of that is going on. Today, what's happened is the legislature has been convinced that we're going to shift that local power by the people, for the people at the local level, to the county prosecutor who's now been given oversight over the DMV database, the voter database, and they then cherry pick their juries for one thing and one thing only, simply to rubber stamp whatever political or criminal agenda they have, avoiding the presentment power altogether. The presentment power is fundamentally dead. And it was the Supreme Court of the United States is responsible for this at the federal level. That's another story. I won't go down that rabbit hole to take me another hour to explain it. But the point is that the feds didn't help it. But either way, imagine that as a fundamental tool. That's gone. So those are your five elements. So none of those work. So I told your audience last week that I began my journey to prove there was no redress of grievance because we have writer revolution. And the key element to writer revolution starting over, whether it is reforming our government or starting anew, requires that all effective means of redress are no longer effectual. We're there, folks. It's no longer necessary. That's why when I began my litigation, I did not do so with the intent of winning. I did it with the purpose of proving that there was no relief to be had. That no matter if you hired F. Lee Bailey or the best lawyer on the planet, right? It didn't matter. Even if Jesus was your co-counsel, didn't matter. The corrupt judiciary would in fact strike it down. And that's what's happened along the way. So I prayed about it, prayed about it. And in the end, Daniel, just do what I've given you the talent and capacity to do. Do your part. Don't worry about the big things that that's for me to handle. And along the way, God continues to reaffirm that principle. Every time I have a setback, it works to my advantage. But I set out to do three things. Go through the process anyway, even though everyone said you won't win, you won't get anywhere. They were right, but that wasn't going to stop me. Two, document the process. And three, prosecute them in the court of public opinion. That's what I'm doing here, right? Prosecuting them in the court of public opinion. To let my fellow man... The sad reality, though, is that there's an old saying, and I forget who the author was, but it's easier to... fool somebody than it is to convince them that they've been fooled well and we're fighting a belief system people don't like to admit that they didn't know everything you know When it comes down to it, it's the ego that gets in the way. It's a lot easier to say, I just don't know. And be on a quest to educate yourself every single day. That's an okay thing to do. But that goes right back to what Vicki and I were talking about. this worship of experts and people trying to have somebody say, you're okay. You know, you know, the whole culture has been turned upside down. It's okay not to know, but you just keep going anyway. And unfortunately, yeah. And unfortunately for fixing the problem, what's happened is, is that I've offended the, the rhinos of the party. Yeah. See, unfortunately hearing the truth and talking about solutions is, has not resonated well with the political class in the state. Some love me and leadership hates me. Leadership hates me because they don't like being told that they don't know what the constitution says. Imagine that talk about being out of order. Yeah, don't confuse me with the law. Don't confuse me with winning at all costs. They don't want to be held accountable either. It's like they want to be right on every turn. The goal is for them to be right, not to have discussion, not to be willing to change or listen to what people say, but just to be right and win. It's like go sports team, go. Right, right. No, you're absolutely right. And so on to my lawsuit. So now I set the framework for my election case. What I uncovered was fundamentally this. From the general court, the legislature's capacity to be the overseer of the courts. It's still there. Part two, the form of government of my state constitution in part four, excuse me, part two, article four says that the legislature, the representative body of the people has oversight over the judiciary because they don't elect the judiciary. The executive branch does in this state. So that's a problem. And, and so the, uh, I moved forward with my, my first election complaint in, uh, along the way. And it was based on these changes. I said, look, you can't, you didn't amend the constitution. It was not informed. I don't call, uh, I don't believe this, that being presented with a constitutional question At the time you are handed your ballot and being given minutes to read a proposed amendment to the state constitution on meeting the standard of consent, how can that be informed consent when you've been given no real time to contemplate the nature of what your government's trying to do. So they, they, seventy-two A was the first step. They told the voters of New Hampshire that if you make this change, that the superior and supreme courts of New Hampshire will be constitutional courts. Well, hold on. The year is nineteen sixty-six. You mean to tell me that they weren't constitutional before nineteen sixty-six? Of course they were. What they didn't tell the voters were if you pass this amendment, that now what's going to happen is you're no longer the people's representative body. The legislature will no longer be able to remove bad judges. It'll greatly reduce the capacity for us to throw out those who go rogue and those who are out of control. And that was the first step in the beginning of voter fraud. So I understood that they were committing it to make changes to the Constitution to achieve these goals. And by the way, that amendment, there was, I believe, eight questions posed to the voters in one of those amendments was struck down as being unconstitutional. So it's not like I'm wrong. I'm actually making a very important point. They only struck down one but left the others to stand. And we've been living with that terrible consequence ever since. So the next thing I found is in the nineteen seventies, and this applies to the United States. throughout all fifty states if we could fix this one thing about our elections, and that is to restore this fundamental fact that prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States was a state citizen. See, there wasn't Fourteenth Amendment citizens. Why? Because we are a republic made up originally of thirteen sovereign countries who wrote a constitution or amended the Articles of Confederation to create a more perfect union, they called it. And this process was supposed to fix a lot of things. It didn't. But either way, a citizen of a state, because Donna, if you look at the US Constitution, you will find that there is no provision in the state constitution or the US Constitution where your voting rights are fundamentally secured. What does it say in Article I, Section II? That the people of the several states shall elect their representative body. Article four of the U.S. Constitution, Article one, Section four, says that the legislature of the several states shall establish the time, the manner, and the place of conducting the elections for electing your federally elected offices. So, We didn't have direct elections. Right. And that's where we've gotten off the rails on the Senate and on the, you know, on the president, the whole thing. I mean, it wasn't a direct election. Well, the Fourteenth Amendment, I would argue, dissolved the Union. Here you have a corporation created by the states to handle the external affairs of all the states, to wage war on their behalf, to protect them, to negotiate peace, to negotiate and establish treaties for commerce and common defense, and to regulate commerce internally and externally as well. I just summarized the US Constitution. So where is all this extra power, all of this extra stuff that it does? The only way they got away with it is this is what progressives are all about, taking baby steps, taking one step at a time that's not so obvious of the potential ramifications of these minor changes that look innocent enough. And so This is, you know, again, this is a huge problem. So the next thing that would happen is the from I found in eighteen oh eight, the original state law that reaffirmed this fundamental fact. that you have immigration in two manners and that you find the evidence of this in the original seventeen ninety naturalization act the very first naturalization law created by the brand new federal congress in new york city when it met in seventeen ninety it acted pursuant to article one section four of the u.s. constitution which is established a uniform rule of naturalization And so the federal government from that point forward to today is responsible for establishing a uniform rule of allowing people who are foreign nationals, people born in other places of the world, So if you want to move, immigrate to the United States, the rules are the same for all fifty states as they were for the thirteen originals. But the very last sentence in that document says something very important. That the people or the states themselves retain their sovereign authority to define who its citizens are. See, they didn't give that power away. They retained it. So, twenty years later or so, from seventeen eighty eight when the U.S. Constitution went into effect to eighteen oh eight in New Hampshire, the state legislature wrote the first statutes that said, hey, that if he in order to vote in New Hampshire, you have to be native born. In other words, you have to be born in New Hampshire or you have to be naturalized. Well, that's a foreign conversation to most people. They don't understand that when you leave the sovereign state of Minnesota and you move to New Hampshire, you are leaving one sovereign country and moving to another. They've lost. That's why the progressives want to call us a democracy. Because they want us to think that we are one big national democracy. We are not. We are a constitutional republic. Again, I won't, anyone who's listening, do your research on that. So this law put that in place. It said you have to be, you have to be one or the other. And then it provided the means. Well, how do you become a state citizen? And it said you had to be born here or naturalized here. And how did you do that? You had to meet the durational residency requirement established by the state legislature, which at that time was identical to federal law. Two years. If you moved here from a foreign country, whether it was Kansas, Minnesota, or Italy, or Greece, or England, didn't matter. If you moved to New Hampshire... You had to go through federal immigration if you were born abroad and state immigration policy if you were an American national, if you were a state national of another state. And only then after meeting the durational residency and being a good person, which meant staying out of trouble, then you would sign or swear an oath of allegiance to the state constitution and the federal. Imagine that. If we fix that in all fifty states, we would fix the same day registration problem. Because see, There's a famous case in the nineteen seventies that I went to the nineteen seventies to point out that all of these changes came to be because of the following changes. The state of Tennessee had a new a new resident. A man was recruited and he, a lawyer who went to the University of Tennessee to teach and he registered to vote and he was denied his right to vote. And he argued under the Fourteenth Amendment that he, that they violated his equal protection clause because Tennessee had done the same thing. They started making residency based on a national perspective. We're going to focus on that word resident. So if you establish residency, you get to vote. And they attached a durational residency requirement, not citizenship. So he argued, hey, why is an old resident, someone born here or been living here for X amount of time defined by the legislature, why should I be treated differently than the other residents of the state? He left out the key element. See, this is another example of two litigating parties arguing that their colorable law isn't colorable enough. It's BS. And so that's exactly what they did. He won. And then the federal Congress passed a law that's with us today. that says that no state in the union can establish a durational residency requirement. In other words, you can't say if I move to Minnesota or New Hampshire or Wisconsin or California, that you can't say you got to live here for thirty days. You got to live here for six months. You got to live here for two years or five years and based on residency. And so that was the first issue. That's what I was pointing out in my remonstrance. So now I made it part of my litigation. And I also had excellent case precedent. There's a very famous case in California called the Van Valkenburgh case, as well as Susan B. Anthony. Susan B. Anthony, we know her for women's suffrage, but she was actually prosecuted, charged, prosecuted, and convicted of voter fraud because the state of New York refused to allow women to vote. They had to amend their constitution to allow her to vote. But in that case, she argued that the Fourteenth Amendment gave her the right to vote. And the U.S. Supreme Court said, no, your right to vote does not emanate from the U.S. Constitution. It emanates from the state constitution. for electing federal representatives. That's a concept that's lost. I just told your audience something. Ninety nine point nine percent of the American population does not know. See, if we attach durational residency requirement to citizenship, the federal government can't can't can't because of the ninth and tenth amendment says what those powers we've not given the federal government are retained to the people and or to the states that's a power we still have so imagine that see we have a big problem here in new hampshire with college kids we have three major state universities Oh, we have it in Michigan, too. Terrible, where they're registering them on the campuses the same day. And we had houses that had people, like, thirty people living in a house, and they were registering them. It doesn't make sense, you know? In a lot of states, you can show up on same day or the day before. check into a hotel, get a receipt, declare that as a residency by swearing under by a, a, a, a unsworn declaration or by saying that, Hey, I'm a resident here because I'm in a hotel. You can't make this up. This is amazing. And vote and move, vote and leave. And so go to another place and vote and leave and go to another place and vote and leave. So now I'm going to get to the real nasty stuff. So this is the big change in the nineteen seventies. OK, well, the next thing that would happen is nineteen seventy nine. We elected in nineteen seventy six a Democrat secretary of state who would serve in that office for forty five years. And he with inappropriately, I'll call it that I'll remain respectful even though I shouldn't be, but I will. You can be unrespectful here if you want. This is no censorship. Well, it's ongoing litigation. So for that reason, I'll remain professional. He convinced the legislature that he ought to write an election procedure manual in nineteen seventy seven. And two years later, he modified that. But see, once he got the legislature to let him give his two cents to opine what he thinks the legislature means. That gave him some discretion of election law interpretation that would be part of an election procedure manual that we live with today, which is ongoing criminal enterprises. He then convinced the legislature to recodify New Hampshire's election law. A hundred and ninety five years of election law were recodified by him and two Rockefeller lawyers, not the legislature. And they put in a ballot law commission that would act as a judicial body that would allow unverified absentee ballots to be counted. He put in the place to use voting machines that would be used in a discretionary manner in an unequal manner statewide. And then they removed the notary certificate off the absentee ballot to start the chain of custody, creating this process where The absentee ballots are now, the text on the envelope is no longer a affidavit. It's an unsworn declaration because there's no eyewitness. For your audience, if it doesn't know this, an affidavit is a sworn statement where you can only swear something is true if you do so in front of an official authorized by law to administer an oath. That law was also part of this part. And what they did is they kept calling this envelope an affidavit instrument. But here's the kicker. They also, part of this change, decided that they would give us religious liberty. Now, absentee voting in New Hampshire starts in eighteen sixty three because of the Civil War and the state legislature submitted to our the state legislature submitted a advisory question to the state Supreme Court and said, hey, can we by statute create the right to vote absentee? And the Supreme Court said, no, Constitution says you have to vote in person, not absentee. Can't do it. So, fifty years goes by, World War I, same question, same process, Supreme Court says the same thing. No, we told you fifty years ago, you can't vote absentee by, the legislature can't create a voting right, because they are our employees. Imagine if you own a company that grows so large that you need to hire a human resources department, and that human resources department say, ah, The old man or the old lady is old. They don't know what they're doing. We're going to rewrite the rules as to how we elect new employees. That's what they did. It's outrageous. But they put that in place. And so this is how all of these changes were. So they decided... We're going to create a religious... So the... I'm sorry, the step in the middle. So World War II comes along, same reason. This time they got the message from the Supreme Court. They said, okay, we're going to propose an amendment because of World War II that you can vote absentee if you are... Because of the war effort, you can vote absentee If you're out of town on the day of the election or you're physically disabled. And by the way, you need a doctor's note and a sworn statement from your doctor. Okay. So that's how we amended the constitution in nineteen forty two. Well, in nineteen seventy nine, they decide to circumvent the amendment process. Remember, I said I began our conversation this morning by pointing out it takes an amendment to change the constitution. There was a reason for that because this is what they did. They said, hey, we're going to give you religious liberty. We're going to create an exemption if you want to claim that you can vote absentee because of a religious commitment or otherwise because of your faith, you can vote absentee. Well, where's the authority for that? There isn't any. The legislature had no authority to do that. And with that move, see, that was a trick. The real trick was that gave them the excuse to rechange the text on the envelope. See the notary certificate and the affidavit requirement that started in nineteen forty two that was in effect until nineteen seventy nine. put in place the process of this is what should be happening. When you vote absentee in New Hampshire, what happened under the original law was that first you had to be registered. It only applied to qualified voters. That means that you are registered in your community to vote. Then you'd receive, you'd apply for a absentee package. It'd come in the mail. You'd get two envelopes and a ballot. You'd have to go to a public official authorized by law to administer an oath. which is a notary, a justice of the peace, an election official, a moderator, selectman, or a clerk of your local town, and give them your ballot. They'd examine your ballot to ensure it wasn't pre-marked. Basically, they're replicating the in-person voting experience. What do you do when you vote in person? You show up, supervisor of the checklist, you hand them your ID, They check to see if you're registered to vote and they hand you a ballot. You walk into a secure area with a ballot they know hasn't been pre-marked because they just gave it to you. You mark your ballot in a controlled environment and you'd be in chain of custody when you put it in a ballot box or a machine. All right? So the next step is you'd disappear in, not disappear, but within the vicinity of this official to replicate the election process. for your benefit, because you want the privilege of voting absentee, mark your ballot, and then return, fold the ballot in half, insert it into the envelope in front of the witness, and then lick it, seal it, and sign it in front of your eyewitness. There was a notary certificate there that says, I watched them, I verified their identity, and they are who they say they are. And in that way, when the ballot turns up for the moderator to count it on election day, no matter how it gets dropped off, he can verify that the signature is that of the voter and that the chain of custody began when it was sealed in front of an eyewitness. And that's what they removed. They removed all of that. And they did it by this act in put the excuses for voting absentee, and then they kept adding exemptions. My babysitter won't let me off of work. Excuse me, my boss won't let me off of work. The babysitter, because I'm a single parent or whatever, I can't get away because no one will watch my kids or I have a dependent elder that counts on my care, right? All of these things continue to steamroll, but here's the kicker. Today, you have seven exemptions, five of them not authorized by the people, no eyewitness, and the voter doesn't even state what reason they're claiming. They simply attest that they are in fact entitled to vote absentee with no one checking. And what did that do in the Our average absentee turnout, even with those enhanced modifications, went from four percent absentee vote total of the total election result to thirty two percent. Thirty two percent. Two hundred and sixty thousand absentee ballots unverified, uncertified were counted in the twenty twenty election and no one said boo. No one said boo. You want to know how Donald Trump lost in New Hampshire? That's how he lost in New Hampshire. And my closing arguments, because we're running out of time today, is one of your probably faithful followers offered some constructive criticism about home rule state versus Dillon rule state. Let me correct the error. They were correct on the Dillon rule versus home rule. We are Dillon rule here. That's what I know very well. So forgive me if I made a mistake on my explanation of home rule practices in states that are in fact home rule. But yes, we're a Dillon rule state here, which means that your local towns and municipalities can only do that which is authorized by your state legislature. So that's my thoughts for today. Well, my mind is kind of blown right now with how we actually got to the fraud that's being committed in absentee ballots. Nobody can look at this and say that this is an honest way to vote. Oh, exactly. Exactly. And so if we did the corrective measures that are part of my litigation, I filed suit four years ago, August of twenty twenty two. also pointed out the safety concerns when they modified the voting machines, they violated state law. They were worried about these voting machines being accessed from external means to be manipulated, to change the algorithm. So without sending them back to the factory, they had unauthorized technicians butcher the motherboard, rip the modems out, violating the united laboratory safety certification because they have to be safe something used in the public domain right that's why we have these federal laws in place to keep you safe not only under osha but under common sense as well and uh yeah all of these things have been done without our consent and this goes for all you can take virtually every subject you discuss here every day every time you do a podcast It's quite likely and highly probable that every single one of those abuses of governmental power have been achieved by the methods I've outlined today. That where there is the inability to get the consent, the popular consent of a two-thirds majority of the population to authorize your state government to exercise more power. that they can do so. I mean, look at the taxing provision, right? My state constitution says very clearly in part one, the bill of rights, that the legislature can't change the method by which it taxes you. Yet, what do we have? We have the sixteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution. My state legislature did not vote for the sixteenth amendment. It couldn't vote for the sixteenth amendment because it was prohibited from doing so. What do you think the king was doing and the parliament was doing to the colonists? Remember the Stamp Act? And all of the other stuff they were doing, willy-nilly, the king needed to raise revenue. And he just kept creating new ways to increase your taxes. That's exactly what we have going on right now. Thank you. Thank you. So it's the same repetitive theme. It is more, more, more, more, more that they keep taking away. And if that's not good enough, then they just engineer more for them by printing money and inflation. Well, that's it. And so when we summarize the whole thing, it really comes down to this. There is a fundamental right to due process to change the government we, the people, created. That's been breached. It's been violated. You know, John Locke, if you study John Locke's two treaties of government, he discusses the issue in that treaty, in his two treaties, about how does government dissolve itself? And the one that I found most fascinating, he talks about being invaded and so on and so forth. One of the part that is relevant to today's conversation was when government changes the method by which it gets itself elected, it becomes illegitimate because it's no longer the representative will of the people, but rather the representative will of the legislature that modified the election process to control itself. Bingo. Bingo. going on nationwide, baby, everywhere. That's what's going on. And until we wrap our heads around, because people talk about school boards and going to school meetings. Yes, citizen involvement is in fact critical, but they're looking for solutions without going back to getting control of the redress of grievances that I began with. And that's why I took the time to spell out There are five methods of redress of grievances. They're all gone. None of them work anymore. We are now at that point in New Hampshire's constitution that says when all effective means of redress are no longer effectual, the people have a right, therefore they ought to reform the old or start a new government. That's where we're at. So that's where I'm at the last step. So this trial judge that completely ignored the remand order from the state Supreme Court, has triggered a revolution. He's triggered a revolution. Where do I get relief? If you can't give relief to laws that you create inappropriately, there's no legitimacy to the establishment. So my prediction is chaos is going to ensue. If you don't believe me, why do you think you have little boys cutting their penises off and girls cutting off their breasts and the entire world has gone mad? Why? We paid for that. It is insanity. And the worst part, the insulting part, to add salt to the wound, We didn't agree to it. We didn't make those changes per se. They simply took the power and an apathetic society. Human nature is very predictable. Apathy has been the bane of the human existence forever. You see kingdom after kingdom. You can start with the Egyptian, the empire, right? The Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Medo-Persian empire, the Romans, the Greeks, and so on. All of these powers have come and gone. As King Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun, right? Another passage, Hosea four, six, right? My people perish for a lack of knowledge. This is why they modified our, our education system. Why do you, in seventeen eighty four public education, New Hampshire was a Christian institution. Public school wasn't public school that you think of today, a secular institution that you're forced to pay for. We're being compelled by our state court who has created a state mandate to tax your property with no provision in the constitution. My state constitution in New Hampshire began with only one method of taxation, property, taxing property. That's it. It was amended six times since. But guess what wasn't amended? The provision to authorize a statewide property tax to finance government indoctrination centers to perpetuate more big government. Why do you think you have a Democratic Party right now? Those people have been trained to think the way they do. You bet. And right from the minute they step in those schools to the last moment they step out of the universities. And the universities are nothing more than huge money laundering operations. It's just amazing how much money goes through the universities. I interviewed a guy about a week and a half ago, two weeks ago, and his family actually was behind funding through the University of Madison in two thousand. They started funding the work on the vaccinations. He's had like eight assassination attempts on him and talked about how they moved it from Chapel Hill and then Obama decided to move it over to Wuhan because he didn't want the United States to prove that. And it's all tied back into the Bush crime syndicate. It's such an entrenched political... piece of crap that's going on out there. It's an machine that they have going on right now. The only way we're going to fix this is if we come together as we do to talk about these things and let people know exactly how bad it is. And then also, what do we do to fix it? Yours was your pro se case. And if we can establish these truths, then what's the next step? Right, right. No, very true, very true. And that's why my education campaign is what it is to the only way we're going to change peacefully our current status quo is by changing the hearts and minds of our fellow man one by one by one, because in the end, it takes a two thirds majority to change the status of our government. And that's the only peaceful way to make that change because the status quo won't fix the problem. They're too entrenched. And the fact of the matter is the majority of them who are involved, who become aware of the problem, don't want to own that political hot potato. Yeah. Oh, everybody's so afraid to say it. They're afraid to say what needs to be said and they're dancing around the issues. The issues, they need to just be called out, flat out, call them out for what they are and refuse to back down. If you know you're right about what you're coming, you've got to say it. You've got to say it loudly. You've got to make noise. You've Can't be quiet about this anymore because we're losing everything. Linda McMahon, the education secretary, did a brilliant short video yesterday explaining an important case out of Oregon where the Supreme Court of the United States a hundred years ago reaffirmed the fact that your children are not the product of the state. Children are the product of the parents, and it's their responsibility, their duty, and not the state's to involve themselves in their well-being. Right now, here in New Hampshire, there is a movement afoot. There's a small fire that's begun over property taxes. What's happened now with all this quantitative easing and the damage done to our economy with inflation is the state governments in order... I warned that this would happen, and my warning is coming true. What's happening now is that the states, in order to remain solvent, are having to arbitrarily raise the tax... base or raise the tax rate on property statewide in order to deal with the inflationary problems created by them taking federal aid. And so now we're headed. So now everyone's getting their tax bill. They're using unrealized capital gains and other shenanigans. And so there's a massive, it's going to turn in a small fire. It's going to turn into a wildfire here soon with a backlash because it goes to the first amendment, right? Establishment of religion. And I love this. I challenge anyone to answer this question. Who establishes morality? Who is responsible for establishing morality? The people are. This is why the Protestant movement that landed on the shores of New England was all about one thing. no longer allowing government to control morality because what was the King of England doing in the Anglican Church? What did the Catholic Church do with some of its practices? Not dumping on the Catholic Church. We know the history is well understood, right? The confessional was used as a very sadistic tool to obtain and keep the Bible in Latin so that they would have a need to keep the papal alive that way. And so that's led to much of these problems. So yeah, we've got a lot to work on. And we've got a lot to talk about. I'd like you to come back on next week if you could at ten o'clock. This time slot works really well and it follows up nicely after Vicki. So we'll talk about that because this works out really good. I can't believe how much I learned from you talking, you know, just talking to you and and the research you've done. And quite honestly, this is what makes us great as a nation is that we come together with our individual expertise of what we've known, what we've put our time into studying, like Daniel and Vicki and everybody else out there. The strength is us being united, one nation, under God, united under God. with integrity and honor. I can disagree with pretty much anybody as long as they have integrity and honor, I'm still gonna sit at the table with them. That's right, that's right. Only thing that that's what matters to me anyhow. And I think that that's those invisible qualities that we're told to desire from God in the Bible. I think that needs to be forefront in our minds. right no you're absolutely right so so how's this um let's let's go ahead and end this today and do you have any last words and then would you like to pray for us today no okay all right there you go no no I will let you do it because my mind is elsewhere and I I need to stay I have a hard time coming out of my mode No, that's fine. I mean, I think that's great. Please do, though. All right. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Daniel and for Vicki and all the wonderful people out there. I ask that your favor would rest upon them mightily on their message and on the ability for people to understand what's being said and break the programming and the biases that have been programmed into us through education, through all these decades of really some very evil people They had very evil intentions because they wanted everything. It was greed and money. And as you said, it's the love of money that's the root of all evil. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for giving us the promise of something better, of a better world to come, of setting our sights on those things that you treasure, those things of integrity, of honor, of doing the right thing apart from gain. And we ask that you would guide every step as we go along in our day today. Continue to bring the truth forward. Continue to help people to step forward, to educate each and every one of us going forward so that we can be a law are a nation of laws rather than a nation of persons or the cult of personality or whatever it is that new shiny thing that gets in front of us that gets our attention. Help us to focus on you and on the rights that were given by you of this world that was created by you, of the fact that ourselves was created by you. The underlying factor of all of this is this is all about what you have created here and decided to share with us. And we are thankful for that. But we also acknowledge that all of these things are created. They're created by you, your sandbox, your rules. And we are happy to do whatever it is that you ask us to do here because you're always good all the time. You're trustworthy. You're worthy of of our worship, and we want to be like you as your children. You're the example. We want to be like you. We thank you so very much for everything that you've done for us. And we've been naughty. All of us have been naughty. We have not always done the right thing, but we're thankful for salvation in Jesus Christ that you, in fact, will forgive us when we ask for forgiveness for what we've done. We're ready to turn this nation around. We're ready to... to do the right thing. And we thank you for bearing with us as we grow through this. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. Amen. Please forgive me because like I said, when I get all this loaded up in my head, one of my consequences is I have a hard time. I have to unwind and start anew. Yeah, you know, and that's I really appreciate that because, you know, you're focused and that's what we do is we focus on what God puts in front of us on our mission at that moment in time. And there's no apologies necessary for that. You know, you're following God's lead. And I'm thankful for that and everybody else out there that's on a mission. that God put them on to write this nation. I have no apologies and high respects from Donna Brandenburg to you for that. I appreciate that. Are there any last words that you want to say before we go to my No, keep up the good fight, everyone. And the good news is, is that we have technology that we didn't have in seventeen seventy six. And so we have and we have two wonderful documents. Well, fifty fifty one. And that's the U.S. Constitution and the fifty sovereign states. And that's something that the founding generation did not have, something to unite around. We don't have to recreate the wheel. We simply need to take back the fundamental principles established by our founding generation because what we have today doesn't represent any of the constitutions and or the U.S. Constitution at all. Well, I think to your point, we think a lot of times that we can jump in with people that have stolen from us our country because they literally have stolen our country, our rights, our children, everything. You don't negotiate with terrorists. That's like terrorist activities right there. You lay down the rules on what is allowable and tell them to go pound sand somewhere because we're not going to budge on this. This is another fallacy I think that a lot of people subscribe to. If I talk enough about this, if I did negotiate with them, if I explain to them the reason why taking our country was wrong that they're going to get it no these people are greedy psychopaths they are not they know what they're doing and they're not sorry for it so now they're not sorry at all they think they're above us so now this is where we get into the non-negotiation portion of our our country where this is non-negotiable they need to step down they need to return everything they've stolen and slither off into the corner as we rip this evil, corrupt cabal out by the roots, chopping the head off the snake, and laying down the rules of going forward of engagement of all these people who have broken the rules. To reason comes to mind, but also reason. Crimes against humanity. I mean, this is all non-negotiable. So we're going to go back to, I guess, we're going to take it back. It's just a matter of a little bit of finesse here because we all have to be on the same page in what we're standing for. you know, and green corruption. So having said, so I'm going to go back to my twenty to my twenty twenty two protests here. Please go to Brandenburg for governor dot com because I'm the best non-conceder has ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. And I'd like to have a discussion with the rightful president, United States President Donald J. Trump and cowboy boots. We'll see who wins it. Where's the better going to be me because I wear them every day and I actually do wear cowboy boots every day as I shovel manure and whatever else I'm shoveling at the time. And And then we're going to talk about some real stuff, some real things that are being fixed. It's going to take some time. And I also think that with each other, we have to be able to show each other grace and patience because we're all like a bunch of little kids trying to figure this thing out. We don't have everything right, but we're getting there. And we're learning every day from people like Daniel and Vicki and John Tater and Greg Martini and all the wonderful people who have stepped forward to get into this fight and show us how things are supposed to be run and what we need to do in order to kick the criminality out that has basically spread like a cancer. And we're going to, we're going to do that. And I just want to leave everybody with hope. You know, we go through so much analysis here. We have to go through analysis to find out how we got here and then how we're able to, through the laws that are already there and in place to go back to what worked, what the founders had gone through. They went through the exact same things we're going through now. They knew what we're living through. And we need to go back to that and trust them that they knew what they were doing to set this up and just roll back and tell what worked. And I think we're in the process of doing that right now. It's a glorious time to be alive. And I really do believe that each and every one of us was chosen by God to be here at this time. Everyone has a mission to do. God's determined that. He has determined it a long, long time ago. We just have to go back to that again and ask him, what is it you want us to do today? And he's good and faithful and he will show us. There is a way out of this. We just have to be willing to humble ourselves before him and follow him. And it's going to be okay. So with that said, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love. God bless America. Make it a great day. Smile at everybody. Just do something simple. Smile. Have a great word to say to our brothers and sisters who are all out there kind of floundering around, wondering what it is that they're supposed to do or who to believe or who to trust. Only one to trust is God Almighty. That's it. The rest of it will fall in place. When he gives you discernment and wisdom, ask for discernment and wisdom, it becomes real simple and clear very quickly. So there you go. So we'll see you tomorrow. See you next week. With John Tater and such and Mike Bambus. And we'll be back on next week with Daniel as we expand our brains a little bit. You know, I think we're all taking this in. It's going to take a while to process. Thanks, Daniel. Stay on the line for one second. I'm going to end the stream. Sure, sure.