BNN - Brandenburg News Network

BNN (Brandenburg News Network) 6/19/2024 Liberty Essentials - Bill Mohr & Dr Dan Cummings

Published June 19, 2024, 9:02 a.m.

9am Liberty Essentials - Bill Mohr II will be teaching his Dad's perspective on religion in government. The Mohr family has a long history in the study of the Constitution and lawful self governance. In our new series of Mohr Minutes, he will be teaching current issues and apply the Constitution for guidance.Also Ralph the IT Guy and Karen the Riveter 10am Constitutionalist, Dr Dan Cummings will be talking about Fundamentals of Liberty. "I have been fascinated by the Constitution of the United States since my older childhood and began a serious and in-depth study of it at the age of 14 that has continued to the present. ​​ This study has included constitutional history, constitutional law, current events concerning the problems of our time, foreign policy and the challenge of America's enemies, and sound free-market economics and its enemies. ​​ That study has never ceased and continues today. ​​ I have learned much even in recent years and continue to grow year by year in my understanding of America's problems, both foreign and domestic. X/Twitter: Rumble:

Transcript in English (auto-generated)

good morning and welcome to brandenburg news network I am donna brandenburg and it is the 19th day of june 2024 and welcome to our show you know what I decided that since we have uh bill and ralph and karen on on wednesdays we're just going to call this liberty essentials wednesday yay so here we are today and I'm going to bring uh bill moore Karen the Riveter and Ralph the IT guy on this morning. Good morning, guys. How you doing? Morning. Good morning. Dan will be on at 10. So besides the nominating convention for the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which is the Constitution Party, which is really what matters here right now is the Constitution, what are we going to talk about today, boys and girls? Believe it or not, I was just studying through George Washington's farewell address, and I I wanted to highlight what George Washington specifically said about political parties. Okay, yeah, let's talk about that and why the U.S. Taxpayers Party in Michigan is existing right now. And I think that we've had this discussion that one of the greatest achievements that we could actually accomplish is abolishing the political parties. Yep, yep, that's it. I think the four people here on screen can all agree that political parties have been the avenue for usurpations under our Constitution and the authority that the people have granted the government, and that mainly done through policy and covert measures opposing each other, as John Adams rightly stated. But let's get into the convention coming up first, because I think that's going to be more important. You know what I think I'm going to do? Everybody's going to laugh at this, and there's a typo at this, but I think this is kind of interesting because I'm going to post all of our pictures and let people vote on what they like the best and see if people even like any of this because we're getting our graphics together. And this is how we do it, boys and girls, on Brandenburg News Network. We're going to just post these things and look at it. So go ahead and talk about it, and then I'm going to post the graphics we're looking at doing And this could be fun. Yep. So there's a lot that goes into setting things up. I'm sure Karen knows quite a bit. And Donna has set up numerous things. And Ralph has kind of been the background of a lot of it that I've seen as well. There's a lot that goes into setting things up for people. Not just, you know, we're not setting up events ourselves. And I appreciate each and every one of you that have a hand in this. because I've tried to set things up myself and just dramatically failed at it. If there was an award for the most fabulous failures, I would own probably 30 of them on my wall. So, oh, cool. Now we can see them. Yeah, now you can see them. So that's number one. That's number two. That's number three. Four. Five. and five. Now this is devoid of our logo right now. So we're going to have to do something to throw the logo in there, but I think these are awesome. And, uh, so these are, this is like a first, first run through first draft. So let's go back here to the, uh, okay, so let's go back to here too. That's number one, two, three, four, five or none of them. What do we think guys? Let's start with, let's start with Ralph. I'm thinking probably the, I don't know. They, they all look good. I'd say probably favorites are probably three and five. Okay. There's three and there's five. Although we got to get the typo out of five. Yeah, five got a typo. It's not U-S-T-P-P-M. It's U-S-T-P-M. So anyhow, I like it. So, Bill, what's yours? Oh, I originally liked one and two. One, I'm trying to figure out those buttons there. There's one with what appears to be a 35. I have no idea why those numbers are there. I think they're just random. The 27th would be July 27th. I get that. But the 35 and 33, I really don't understand at all. I think they were just placeholders somebody put in there. Could very well be. Yeah. Okay, so there's one. And then what's your other one? That one right there. And one, it should be mine or party, by the way. We're not a third party. Two parties don't exist. This was a friend that decided to jump in and help me because I've got so stinking much to do that I don't have time to do it myself. So this is good. Okay, Karen, one, two, three, four, five. Show me the one that neither one of them liked. Oh, great. Let's just go ahead and confuse the hell out of everybody. That's okay. We'll do it. So that is one, two, three, four, and five. I like four. I like that it's simple. Number one, but that it has the two Capitol buildings. I kind of like that. Um, number three, I had an aversion to, and I'm not sure why. Um, I think there's some kind of element in there that, that, um, reminds me of old school Nazi party. That's what I thought too on that one. And, uh, That one I think is just a little busier. I mean, it's cool. And there was a lot of work that went into that. Yeah. Okay. So there's one, two, three, four, five. You know, if we use, let's look at four and five a second. We could actually put the USTP logo right there, the little eagle head. Might have to adjust the color just a little bit. Same thing here. We could put it here, but adjusting the colors. You know what I like about what you just did in posting it, you said? What's that? You demonstrated one of the founding principles of the party. Yeah, well, you're talking about the voice of the people being important. You just said that before you mentioned the logos. And then you said, hey, why don't we have the people decide which logo? Yeah, that was kind of like quick and to the point, too. So Charlotte said first one, Leb says number one. So that's number one right there. So one, we have a couple votes for number one. Probably number one. Number one's cool, too. It looks kind of old school, but it's kind of very patriotic. And, you know, the Constitution Party is or the Constitution is pretty, pretty. I mean, it is a heritage history. So we want to I think we want to communicate that. But I like one. To me, back up a second. OK, three one is out. I think three is out, but I don't know. Okay, so let's go through this one more time, and then we'll take votes and see what comes out on the chat. So there's one. Kyle, sorry. Let's see. Bill, what do you think? No, I'd still say one. And I'd take one over two with a couple of minor changes. Okay. Karen? Karen? I think four or one. I can go with one. I don't really have a problem with it. I just like four better. Okay, Ralph. I think they're all pretty good. Okay, so one, two. I can't say I'm a big fan of two, though, I guess. Okay, let's knock two and three out because we have stronger versions to that. There is four. Four. And, you know, I like the cleanness of five, too, but I like all of them. Four. That one, to me, the stripes running kind of catches my eye more than what's written on it. Yeah. And that's just me. That's just my artist's eye. I'm distracted by the stripes. On two? That one there. Okay, so this one. One has more of a focal point. For that one there the only the thing that caught me off was the fact that the stars are straight and the stripes are tilted My equilibrium yeah Okay, that's really good feedback, you know, to have what people's impression. You know, I used to do a lot of design work and I had an ad agency, a design agency, and I did corporate strategy and such. And sometimes the focus groups, when you put a focus group together and listen to what people say, that's really the way the government should be run in total. But that's, that process is so valuable because it does, it does give, it brings, people bring things up at, as soon as it, as soon as it hits them, boom, the first, the first impression you have is always the most insightful. When people think about it too much, they overthink it. So let's go back again. I'm good with the first one too. I'm good with any of them, but it sounds to me like, I don't really have that much of an opinion because I think we could go with any of them. So... If we want to do the first one. Could make those little button numbers 1776. Well, that could be fun. Besides that, 17 is my favorite number, so there you go. And get rid of the 33. I don't know why the 33 is there. I think it just sort of happened. Okay, so what do you think about that one, guys? Is that something that everybody can agree on? Sure. So number one will appeal to the outcast, Motor City Gangs. That's what Love says. Number one says Charlotte. Agreed, Charlotte. So we have mostly a consensus on number one. So is that the one you want to go with? Yeah, I would get rid of the 33. And then I like the idea of doing 17 on the left and 76 on the right. The upper left circle there is an easy place to put the logo since it's already half there. And then the upper right could actually be the Michigan seal. Love it. Okay, so I think we have a consensus here. This is great. This is building things on the fly in a lawful way, not braidering it like the idiots in the Board of Elections in the state of Michigan. This is actually how it's supposed to work. And so I guess the people have it. It's number one is going to be our graphic. Okay. And does everybody love it or like it? Both. Yeah, I think it's nice. So, because we could come back with something else. I could do something else that's a more modern-y looking design, or we can go with this. I'm just taking some notes here on the changes. Yep. And it needs to say minor party movement, if we're going to leave that phrase in there. Yeah, no worries. So anyhow, so everybody, if you're on this right now, you know that we have our nominating convention on July 27th. And we would like to invite you all to come to that. It's going to be a lot of fun. We always have a lot of fun with these things. And it's not like the normal major party convention where everybody's acting like a bunch of idiots and slapping and all that other crap that happens because... Yes, I said that right out loud, didn't I? Yep. I'm going to bring, but it's the truth. So I'm going to go up and bring up our website here a minute. And I really think I'll be posting something. You know, I'm going to ask everybody out there to get on here and join at least the newsletter. And to be contacted. Join us at least. Register yourself for that. And I'm going to try to do a little bit better job at posting stuff. So anyhow, let me go back here a minute. Become a candidate. We need to have people running for things. And that's real important because that's what we do is we put candidates up. And I think because we have ballot access, we've got to remember that we have the ability as we watch the other parties burn to the ground to actually get candidates in there that are going to help. with the taking down of the political party system, even if it means our own organization, because this is what needs to happen, guys. Sometimes you have to cancel yourself. And I've said this from the beginning that sometimes you win by losing. So here's the state convention. We are going to be at Lost Arrow Resort in Gladwin, Michigan on the 27th. It is from 10 o'clock in the morning to, let's see if we get it, 10 to 3. And here is where all of you can go and register, which I'm sure that you're all going to jump on this and do this today. There you go. And there's the information. We don't charge the big dollars. It's $55 for each current USTPM member. $90, and that includes a membership to the Constitution Party in the state of Michigan, which is USTPM, which we should be called the Constitution Party, but because we have criminals and tyrants in the seats, such as Jocelyn Benson, we can't change our name to the rest of the United States because we have a communist operative in the seats. I think technically including the membership is the second option, isn't it? Yeah, the $90 includes your membership. So if you're a current member, it's $55. If you're not, it's $90. And that also gives you the ability or makes you a member of the party, which, guys, we need some help here. All right. We need a little bit of help here because there's a few of us that are keeping this option open. And the reason why I feel so strongly about it is because we have to have more options. And you will notice that the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump, always makes bad endorsements. Every time. He has not made one good endorsement in the state of Michigan. What does that tell you? He went to the Libertarian Party and said, oh, I'm going to show up at the Libertarian Party. I actually invited him, put an invite out there to come to our national convention. Didn't show up. Didn't show up. right? But he shows up the libertarian party and they vote in somebody who literally claimed that he would take his daughters eight years old or something like that to a drag Show without hesitation. Okay, so right then and there, the rightful president of the United States is doing what he does best, is exposing criminality. You notice he hasn't spoken to Donald Brandenburg or the Constitution Party. I'm guessing it's because he is actually throwing out the ones that you don't want to be a part of, right? or that have some questions. So the point being here is that we have actually a very clean party. The people that are there are committed to restoring the nation, getting rid of the unlawful activities within the parties. We don't compromise. We do not take the money that is offered to us if it's from a bad source. And no dark money, no pack money crap going on here. This is we the people. It's a pure party. And I feel really strongly about that as first vice chair and I know Bill does. as a chairman too that um that that's just the way it's going to be you know if nobody else is going to do it right we are and something that you said this week bill that I think is really really telling is that a lot of times people people run from you if you're telling the truth because they're suck ups they're sucking up to the people that have the power and the money and they will distance themselves from people who are actually trying to do the right thing because we're not controllable by the deep state. Yeah. The one thing we hold is the, I mean, we hold the high standard, right? The high ground here. And that is... the allegiance to our laws, to our constitution, and anything compromising outside of that is null and void, right? It doesn't matter if you're promoting something that is outside of the authority of the government that the people have put in place, then you are an enemy to the constitution itself. And anything you say, you're just wrong. Well, and if we support something like that, if you support it without speaking out just because you want to go along to get along, guess what? You're in the enemy camp. And there's a clear definition there. We are in a battle between good and evil. Choose your side. Another thing about this, too, is just the mere existence of the party has a a definite effect on what can be done. For example, part of Randall Terry's strategy for being the Constitution Party's national candidate for president, part of his strategy relies on being on the ballot in at least 10 states. It doesn't matter, in that case, the percentage of votes that he gets. It doesn't necessarily matter so much as being on the ballot in the first place. And he stated that he will take votes from Biden. So you can hit this thing and attack it from many, many... It's a wrong way to think about it, to think that there's one strategy. When you have an army that's pulling together for the same purpose... You have people that may flank from the right or the left. You may have air support. You may have artillery. You may have ground troops. You may have people that are in intelligence. Like 90% of any war that's won is the non-ballistic warfare that's going on and or the things that are going on in intelligence behind the scenes. It's not always direct warfare. And what I liked about Randall Terry is he said, I'm not going to win. I am not going to be in the White House. But I can take votes from Biden. And I can bring up the fact that we are solidly pro-life in this butchering of children. pre-born children and post-born children has got to end. This is all about, this party is all about the children and it's our posterity. And when you look at the core message of all of what we believe in and what we're willing to fight for, it's our children. It's protecting the children and doing what adults do not do with these idiots that are playing, play, play, play, play, going to the bitch sessions in the political parties or even the grassroots things where they just go and they complain, but they don't do anything. They don't even raise awareness effectively. But they sure as heck don't recognize the fact that if we don't get rid of these machines and if we don't get serious about protecting the children instead of who's who in the zoo and being in the pom-pom squad popularity contest, we're going to lose. on that note, one other thing too, to bring up about this is that the, uh, uh, as you've experienced by being on the ballot, uh, it provides you legal standing to be able to take cases against wrongdoing because there is a, uh, there's a very clear, uh, There's a very clear case of you being a harmed party. Yeah, and there's a quote I use. I don't know if I said it on this show or not, but there's a quote I use oftentimes going all the way back to 1775 by Captain Parker, one of the Minutemen back then. He said, stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. He was one of the men then that understood that war may be inevitable, but he was not willing to postpone it to the next generation. He was willing to fight it on his terms in his time. that his posterity can have peace. And there are several men that used to speak in that regard, and it's about time that everybody stand up and understand that that concept is real. The war is not beginning. It is not in the future. The war has begun. We are coming to the end times of that war, right? It's often said that the first shot is not the beginning of war, right? The first shot wasn't the beginning of the Revolution. It wasn't the beginning of the War of 1812. It wasn't the beginning of the Civil War, the War of the States or War of Northern Aggression for all you Southerners. The first shot is the beginning of the end of the war if we can stop it before then that should be All of our energy should be focused to that point Right, it's like the like the saying of uh, all wars are a failure of diplomacy Yeah This is interesting because I think that's trump's approach And while we had four years of peace and what's happening today, um, from just looking on the international postings that I shared this morning, there is so much pressure against the U S right now and signs of pending war. And meanwhile, we got this guy who doesn't, he can't even speak properly. He has no respect. Yeah. Yahoo challenged him. Um, publicly which is just crazy like that would never happen with trump we're being humiliated on the global stage got north korea and russia making this little compact and they're all happy together they're sitting in a fancy car together and meanwhile we got this guy that's having to be escorted around because he hasn't a clue where he is um but trump was a peacemaker because he never would let us get to the point where there would be shots fired. Well, that's correct for the most part. However, it's often misstated that we had four years of peace during Trump. I've got to correct that, because the war continued on. We didn't engage in anything new, I will imagine. But if you actually go into the Air Force records and reveal... how many, uh, if you just look at the regular air force bombings in war, uh, whether it be Afghanistan, Iraq, uh, Somalia, uh, a couple of the other little islands that were busy being terrorists over there. Um, those bombs were still being dropped and they were still being dropped on, on innocent civilizations out there as well. Um, that never stopped. I will be, I will be adamant to make that public. Um, But yeah, so you're correct in some regards. There was a lot of negotiations and a lot of peace trying to be made. But once again, the Constitution Party, right? We stand up and we say the first instance should have been to end the wars there because we have no business in them. They're unconstitutional. Congress never declared it. So we have no business sending our men and our women, our children, over there to fight a war that has never been declared by the people, right? So I was actually one of the ones, I applaud Biden when he went to pull the troops out. He did a horrible job, right? But from a constitutional perspective, that should have been the first duty of the chief executor is to remove our troops from any foreign entanglement right now. So that was like one itty-bitty step that was almost done right that ended in drastic failure. Give credit where credit's due. You still failed, but we made a small step. So in all of this, and we were just talking about it, even with the Constitution Party, all of this is based on a mindset Bill froze up. I actually heard you say I froze up that time. That was really weird. Well, that's cool. But everything is based on a division, whether you've got Trump or Biden, right or left, red or blue. Those terms keep going, and they're all lies to make the people believe that what they're saying is true. And it's always been that division of party mentality. And this is something that I wanted to get to today and that we've talked about on the show before in brief, but I didn't realize how much our first president, George Washington, first elected president, I should say, George Washington, had said regarding the matter. When he gave his farewell speech, let me get the date right. I got a microphone in my way. When he gave his farewell speech in 1796, it was September 19th, He said some keen things. And this is a little long, so I'm going to try to make it through without dragging it on too much. But he said all obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct. You know what? Here, let me. You need to just pull that up on screen so everybody can read it. Okay. Can you do that a minute, Donna? Where are you sending it? Put the link in the chat. Put the link in the chat, in the private chat. And then I can pull it up, sure. Well, going back one subject, too, to the military interventions we've got all over the world. At least it's, you know, within the constitutionally allowable limits of having two years of a funded army. We haven't had a funded army for more than two years now, have we? No, they keep renewing it every two years without a declaration of war. Well, they can do that every time they invoke emergency powers. That's the problem that we have right now. We've gone from one state of emergency to the next, to the next, to the next. Oh, my gosh. And we're never out of it. Okay. And here we go, boys and girls. Let's scroll down and see if I can't figure out the. where I was reading from a book. So when I look at this. Increase the size here a little bit. Okay. That would be page 14 is where I'm starting. 13 pages prior to that. And this is something I didn't realize, but this is something that the Senate reads every year still to my knowledge. that somebody has picked out from the member of our Senate and they read this and then they sign their names in a farewell address book as one that has read through it all. So I thought that was pretty cool. That's cool. They should read the Bible while they're at it. Yeah, you know, that actually used to be. Okay, so where do you want me to start? Right there, that's page 14. Right there. All obstructions to the execution of laws and combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or all the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and a fatal tendency. division, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force to put it in the place of the delegated will of the nation. Bill, keep seizing up here. Bill, hold on. Go back to they serve to organize faction because you keep breaking up. Oh, okay. They serve to organize faction, right, or division, right? to give it an artificial and extraordinary force to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans adjusted by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However, combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends. They are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be able to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterward the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. I'm going to talk about a powerful statement. That is the will of the major parties that are put in place right now. Absolutely. All right. Pretty much encapsulates it all right there. Yeah. Yep. That it does. And he goes on to warn the people. He says, towards the preservation of your government, page 15. and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principle. However, spacious or pretext, one method of assault may be to affect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. What are they doing now? Overthrowing the government. Bye. Yep. small little alterations, right? They don't even have to amend it now. They've gone so far from its understanding by these little alterations and policies that they've overthrown it without the people's consent. He says, in all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions. That experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country. that facility and changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion. And remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable." Liberty itself will find in such a government with powers properly distributed and adjusted its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of persons and property. There you go. Now, this is coming from a guy with, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe George Washington had an eighth grade education at the time. Kind of tells you how our education system has really failed and kind of dumbed down everything. But we sure know, we don't even know what a woman is at this point in time. His eighth grade education would probably be equal to eight years of extra college for the rest of us. I assume so. Well, you know, if you stick to the basics too, you know, the basics of that's, that's the problem is like, like they're teaching, they're trying to teach people to run a marathon before they know how to walk. And I, you know, it's like in, in every area of study, they're, they're going, they're not teaching people to think they're teaching people to spit back answers rather than to reason out when, when an attack, of deception comes, people typically have a hard time handling that. Oh, yeah. And that's kind of what he was alluding to, is that we cannot survive if we cannot handle factions. If we can't handle disputes among ourselves, right, and the ability for us to self-govern, then we cannot survive, right? Life is all about the disputes. It's all about the challenges, the cry of the people in the wilderness trying to get set up. It's all about the work we put into it. What we sow into it is what we're going to get out of it. And anybody who says otherwise, you haven't lived life yet. And I tell my kids that all the time, especially when they're little. They get outside and they get a scrape on their hand or something. Are you bleeding? Are you okay? You got a bone sticking out? Okay, you're good. But let's move on beyond this because you haven't understood what pain is yet. You will, at some point in your life, you will understand this. But as for now, you felt a small portion of life. And if you can't handle that, you're not going to be able to handle what you're going to face. Just little bits of wisdom to understand that what we think we know is very little compared to what those who have survived longer than us may know. And now we teach... We teach people in the indoctrination system about what they're entitled to, what they're supposed to be given, right? The whole minimum wage thing came up to me again this week. And minimum wage, sure, everybody should have an opportunity to get involved, but if the place you want to work for doesn't want to pay what you think you're worth, move on, right? If everybody has that mindset, they're going to have to raise their rates to find somebody to work for. Because nobody's going to work for five bucks an hour, mainly. I know a few people that probably would. But they're going to have a hard time finding people. The federal government, if anybody can prove me wrong, grab your constitution, skim through all the pages there, and tell me where in Article 1, Section 8, that it describes the federal government setting up income wages and determining the regulation there. Because I can't find it. I think it's right around the same place where it authorizes the federal government to set up a central bank. Yeah. And that's even a little bit... I was reading a little bit more on that, Ralph, this week, actually. And I don't remember where, but that came up again. Oh, I think it was Thomas... No, it wasn't Jefferson. It was one of the president's following... he vetoed the bank bill. I want to say it was 1820-ish, somewhere in there. But there was an actual bank bill that came up, and I was reading through his long, lengthy letter of why he vetoed it when it came to his desk. And that's actually, it's a really good read if you haven't. I can give you the title if you give me a minute here. I got it in front of me. I just don't know where it is. That sounds like an interesting thing to read. It really is. Oh, Andrew Jackson. He vetoed the bank bill. It was 1832. It's a very good, and it's long. It's not just like he vetoed this because it didn't fit the Constitution. It didn't have this one point. It wasn't a line item veto. I mean, he said there are some good things in this bill, but because of all of this, And it's like four pages. He says, I can't support it. He vetoes the whole thing. That takes courage. I'm sure he made a lot of friends that day, but he did the right thing. That's what it's all about, is doing the right thing, regardless of whether people approve of it or not. Yeah, uncompromising. Uncompromising. We have to hold the line, right? If we don't stand for something, we fall for everything. And I'm going to stand on the side of the Constitution and the law as much as is within me and given to me. That is where I make my stand. I posted the other day about there was a great discussion on the defected Rumble video that I watched, listened to. They talked about Trump bringing up tariffs and him pulling income tax from the tips of waiters and so on. And why is he doing that now? What is the discussion about? And it's great because he, What can they possibly do on the left to combat him saying taxes aren't good, basically? Are they going to say, no, we need to tax and we don't need tariffs? Because it opens up the conversation about whether these things are constitutional or not. They can't fight it. But it's a phenomenal time now. to have that conversation, open a door, and who is doing a lot of the waitressing and waitering, or whatever you want to call that, but younger people that have perhaps gone through some levels of education, found that it didn't get them the jobs that they wanted. Now they're having to try to struggle. They know what struggling is now. And here's a guy saying, you know what? You don't have to do that if you vote for me because we're going to do away with those things because they're not right. Not because I want you to vote for me, but because they're not right. And to see that discussion come out, it's encouraging to me that the discussion itself is timed now because where can we go from here? It's just... We can go to a lot of good places from here, but this is a great discussion. And I'm kind of surprised, in a sense, that he waited this long to do it. Yeah, I'm amused too that if Andrew Jackson, with him vetoing that, that now on the $20 Federal Reserve note, he's pictured. Yeah, that is funny, isn't it? Well, I hate to say it, but it's kind of like, Quite often, I think something that happens is they'll kind of jab people and you don't really even realize that somebody's getting a jab. I'll take, for instance, there was a couple of lanterns that showed up in the Q post. I don't know if you guys followed it. But what I found was really amusing about these lanterns is it's the same lantern that the Kennedys give out as an award. Well, if you really look at what's going on there, they're pretty much pointing to the people who are involved in the assassination of Kennedy. And guess who's got one? Jocelyn Benson. And the organization, they're in the club. So it's a club they're pointing out, in my opinion. When you look at it, I can pull them up and show it to you, but I think it's kind of funny. So when we look at things, we got to remember there's a war going on and not everything that we see is actually what's going on. There's a lot of actors and actresses out there. There's a lot of people that are playing a role. That's part of the deception. When you're in the act of war, you're going to have lots of different people playing different roles. And the ones that are least visible or the ones that you least expect are probably the most consequential. If you want, I can try to find it, pull it up for you. I think it's kind of interesting quite actually. You know, it's funny because you're kind of bringing up the cheap fake slash deep fake. The press person, her name, John Pierre. I can't remember her name properly. Yeah. for Biden. Number 158 or something like that. Who really cares? Well, she, she said the other day that these conspiracy theorists are putting out deep fakes of Biden when he screws up, when he can't walk, when he can't talk, those are deep fakes people. Yeah. Now she's jumping on it. So go for gosh sakes. Let's see what I can find here. Um, It's going to take me just a minute. If somebody wants to jump on and help me with this while I'm trying to run four screens, by the way, it would be helpful. Yeah, I've had to narrow mine down to three. I couldn't do four anymore. And then I'll show you because I actually went down to the Ford Museum, which is not the Ford Museum. It's the Kissinger Museum, just so you know. That's absolutely true. I haven't been there since I was a kid. I'm primarily on one screen because I got to use a portable device to get in a quiet area because my normal workstation is usually way too loud in that environment. Well, I tell you what, let's see if I can find it. Of course, they're going to try to obfuscate it here. They're going to try to hide it. I can't multitask on internet. I don't think. You know what I think I'm going to do? I think I'm going to set up another phone and do an Instagram. Wouldn't that be fun? Yeah. Let's see if we can get it to come up. I saw a little video clip this morning about TikTok that someone was sharing. TikTok used to be heavily left-leaning, but now... the censorship has dropped enough that it's very balanced, or at least there's a lot of truth-telling going on there. Because so many people are awake and aware now, and that is why they're fighting so hard to keep it out of the states and other countries, little girl. Because they don't want people sharing the truth there. They can't control Twitter anymore. And you've got to watch it, too, because the CIA is very well known for for their practice in this as is other agencies where they just as Lenin had said, where they will control the opposition because they know the best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves. And that's an old philosophy that continues on in almost every overthrow, every globalist and communist agenda that there is. is they will not only play their agenda out, but they will oftentimes have a counteragenda that they will control to keep that division going, but not only that, but to keep people in on one side or the other while they're both progressing the same direction, right? One of the examples I used during that is during the 1920s, during the... the Russian trust operation, the revolution happening over there, there was an operation within that called the Russian Truth. And it was an anti-Bolshevik network, so to speak, news and... I don't know how else to word this, but it was an established anti-Bolshevik organization that was run by them, right? And when Q honestly first came out, that's the first thing I thought of because the establishment of it was right at the right time and a lot of the things that were promoted early on through that seemed along the same indications as the Russian truth or the trust operation that they had going on during that time. So I'm very cautious when I see large things like that, when people jump on and promote, Only because of that. And I think all of us can admit a lot of the stuff that happened early on in Q that people were promoting never came to be. I think, okay, so like I'm a Q person, okay? And I follow Q. I'm actually in the Q posts under one of my anon names. And that just means anonymous, somebody who was out there researching and that sort of thing before it became a thing. And what I really think happened with the Q post is that woke people up enough to start asking questions. And right off the bat, Q stated that disinformation is necessary. And so what was Q all about and what happened? The Q movement, or it's not really a movement, but the Q posts were posts that came out of 4chan, 8chan, and 8kun. That's it. But what happened is all these people that were trying to build an audience and make money off of it, the patriots, P-A-Y-triots, jumped on it and said, I'm going to tell you what it means. Just exactly like what pastors do to the Bible. They grab it and they say, but we're going to get the butts in the seat. We're going to get our donations up. We're going to do this, that, and they insert themselves in it in order to have power, influence, and money. The Q posts when they came out, what it was all about. And I mean, so you can take all the Q and on and the Q crap that's out there. That was an infiltration. Right then and there, you can call it an infiltration immediately. Now there were good and bad things that came out of it. There were the researchers that started out with it from the beginning that just looked at it not to be a sheep and be told what to do. Like we are sitting here, we're not going to be told what to do and looked at it and ferreted through the information for themselves. They didn't sit there and have to have somebody feed it to us and tell us what it was saying. We would go to source documents. We would look things up. We would find other people who weren't looking for fame and fortune, but just wanted the truth and shared information. And it was extraordinary. But what you saw out in the public, and I'm still, I could name a whole bunch of names of people that are just actors that were spinning it in order to build audiences. I could name a lot of them, quite honestly. Because I was there. I was searching through it. And I watched it with great disgust at what people were doing. And Q even said, be careful of patriots, P-A-Y, right? So this is where your intelligence has to jump in and decide, am I going to just follow people just because they say that they're Republican or say they're Democrat or say they're part of Q or on and on? No. You've got to read the posts. Read it for yourself. Stop listening to what everybody says and get it figured out. And the unfortunate thing is, is that is that that didn't happen with everybody. Now, I think we knew that it wasn't going to happen with everybody because that's the nature of the beast. But the people that are smart are going to go in there and say, wait a minute, what are they really saying? And not listening to what the agents of disruption were telling them to think. It's still going on to this day. But there was an awful lot that came true. And it really wasn't that came true. There was an awful lot that helped steered us to wake up and start questioning things, question everything and make up your mind for yourself. When President Trump said that they're giving the government back to we the people, did that mean that they were spoon feeding us like a bunch of little baby birds information? No, it's a process of turning us back into adults finding out what it is, being able to talk intelligently about things, and steering away from the nonsense that's out there. There's so much nonsense out there. I've got a few friends, and I'm going to tell you what. If you had a scale of 1 to 10 on discernment, they're negative 50. Anything new that comes up, oh, this is what this person is saying, this is what that person is saying, Commander Thor says this, blah, blah, blah, says this, and on and on and on and on and on. There's no way to prove any of this stuff. And so like for me, I don't believe anything and I don't disbelieve anything until I see the proofs. There's got to be more evidence to it, but I'm open to it. It may be, but it may not also not be. But even with the proofs that are out there, there's a lot of stuff that's in question. And I quite honestly am not tied to anything completely at this moment in time because it could change. We could get more information and it could change things. But these people that are buying everything, somebody says, Oh, I'm following this person. I'm following that person. I don't care who you're following because information is information. You can follow Q and you can, if you want to follow the Q posts, I love the Q posts. In fact, I'll bring up Q alerts, right? Watch me get censored right now. Um, you know, and it, you know, to follow the Q, the Q, uh, The big issue was that people rely on a crutch. A lot of that is because they refuse to think for themselves and look at the facts of the matter. And that is because they don't know the truth of the matter. I think I brought it up here before that regarding bankers, tellers, people that handle currency a lot. They are charged with weeding out all the counterfeits. And the way they do that is not by studying all the different counterfeits and trying to determine which ones are fake, but they study the real thing. That way, when they come across the fake, it won't feel right. Right? That's the base of it. And the same thing goes for everything that happens politically. If we want to discover the counterfeits, if we want to see who's actually not in the right, we need to study the truth, study the founding documents or constitution, determine how things are supposed to work, and those who are promoting something outside of that, you will have no business going hand in hand with you, right? Yep. So I'm going to throw this out here and I want you to say, is this something that's telling us an event? No, Q didn't tell events. It kind of said, well, like the Bible, it says, well, this is what's going to happen. But it didn't say, you know, I listen to these idiots that want to tack things down to dates. Don't tack it down to dates. There's no dates given on this. Yeah, they call it... they call that date fagging yes date fagging it's selling hopium that hopium that that we've got so it says it has nothing to do with it listen to this so like the last three posts that were done in 2022 um which I i think I think this is real interesting and all of us are still like waiting for q to post again so q if you're watching out there which I know you are um you know he's he's got little spies everywhere You know, and what is Q? Q said, it's very easy if you actually read the post instead of reading what people said about them. I shouldn't even tell you what it says. Go to and start reading. Review and make up your own mind instead of people saying, oh, Q's bad, Q's good, Q's whatever. Who cares? Go figure it out for yourself. Last four posts. 4964. Be aware of false prophets. I am not a prophet. You are not a prophet. We are not profits. Focus on the mission. The next one, it's got a Q&A going on in time. Q says they want them to do a Q&A. So Q&A says in time. The 4966, what is coded in your DNA? Who put it there? Why? Mankind is repressed. We will be repressed no more. Information is knowledge. Knowledge is power. Information is power. How do you protect your DNA? There is a war for your DNA. Protect your DNA, Ascension. Now, I really think that this is important to look at. Did they say anything was going to happen? No. Didn't say a thing. We could go back further than that. Let's read the next three going back. 4963, run back, dominion, SOS offices, investigators, researchers, whistleblowers, patriots in trusted positions. Trust yourself. You have seen the truth. Time to show the world. Focus, focus, ascension. 4962. Who are the silent thieves? Why are they manipulating you? How are they stealing your wealth? Bubble, crash, steal, lie, repeat. What is inflation? Monetary manipulation. Taxation without representation. Put an end to the endless 1913. Well, I mean, I don't, I don't have to tell anybody what to think. What happened in 1913? All right. Figure it out. I'm not going to sit here and tell you spoon feed you like a bunch of baby birds and neither is anybody else. Go read it. 4961. Endless lies, endless wars, endless inflation, endless printing, endless suppression, endless subjugation, endless surveillance. Who will put an end to the endless taking control? Is this telling us what's happening? No, it's not. And so it's like, It's questions. It's a Socratic method for us to figure it out, get a little smarter. And, oh, I like this one. 4958. Can emotions be used to influence decisions? Yes. That's how they're driving all of us all the time. They're trying to put us in fear. All that sort of thing. It's all questions. And, you know, there's all questions being asked. And so... They're questions that help you find the answers. I'll give you that. But they were to motivate questions and research to turn us all in digital soldiers to get out there and find the truth and put it out there. And that's what it was about. It was the people that grabbed these. This is an aggregator. This isn't even the original post. Somebody pulled it off the Kuhns or eight Kuhn and the Chans and put them here so we could find them in order. There's a couple of aggregator sites out there. But the original ones, there was just posts that showed up on 4chan, 8chan, and 8kun. That's it, guys. That is it. Anybody that takes it from there, monetizes it, or uses it for a platform, you better question their motives. Yep, and that was the big issue as people made a big deal out of this and it became almost like a separate religion to them. QAnon and how that turned into building audiences and taking control and monetizing it is not how Q started this out. That is the failings of human beings that happens in the churches. It happens in every organization where if there's something good that's being done, someone is going to jump on that organization and infiltrate it in order to take control, make money, and become famous for it. Almost nobody can avoid that trap. There's very, very few human beings that... Walk close enough to God to avoid that trap. And even they are suspect for it. It's only by God's strength that does it. Bible does it. Churches do it. The churches, most of them are apostate right now. You're better off just grabbing your Bible and starting to read. Ask God questions and let him answer it. Because those people that are manipulating the money flow, you got to give more. You got to give, give, give, give, give. Run. Run from these people. Why? They're fakes. God doesn't need money for big church buildings. God doesn't need anything. He can give us the ability to win this because it's his win. All we got to do is stand on doing things the right way, doing things the right way, not pretending that we're doing any of this ourselves or through money or the money we raise or our strengths or anything like this. It has nothing to do with that. He does not need us. When we win this is when we give this up and say, okay, God, what do you want us to do? Sheer effort or just walking or even just sitting still and watching him bring the miracles to us and realizing our position. God is here. We're here. We are not God. He is God. He is the one and only. We are not. We are not. We are not all powerful. We are not powerful. We are his children and we are just to follow in his lead. That's it. And everything to the bed, but we do have to do the work. If he asks us to do something, we have to stand. We have to be willing to do the work and lay all the crowns at his feet. I think if people had a little time every day, they should be reading the Bible before reading the Q Q drops. I, I think, um, the Bible is a lot more simple to read and understand too. Um, My introduction to it really was, uh, what was his name? At some point I shared a review of some essays that somebody did. He was looking at it from a social, um, aspect. Not was it, was it real? Was it true? Was, who was it? But what was the effect on people? And that's how I learned a little bit about how it was affecting people. It started out in groups where really intellectual people love to challenge each other. And they play games and riddles and all kinds of stuff. and things that are beyond the heads of many others. I can't possibly comprehend a lot of the material in the Q drops. I've tried just kind of reading through it and I get like, okay, these are little phrases with numbers and letters and I can't comprehend it. I'm not supposed to. I don't have to. What I have gotten out of it comes largely from other people's interpretations and shares. Sometimes I'm like, okay, that's just a coincidence. You're stretching it really, really far. Other things are like, you know, that makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe that's not a coincidence. That's really interesting. Are you learning anything that's real out of it? I think there's a lot of misconceptions about it. Because people want to challenge it as far as it's making people want to sit on the couch and not do anything because the military is the only way. So, for example, I used that same website that Donna brought up to look at how often does it say that. One time does it say the military is the only way. There are many other drops that say that. accountability is the only way, truth is the only way, justice is the only way. There's one more. And I tallied them. How often were those phrases shared? So I think it's an encouraging thing in a time where, as people were becoming aware of the depth of what was going on, Then and now, I think there's a lot of encouragement in there. And for people like me that have a little bit of brains, but not the level of the people who were there in the Jan alternate groups, I find encouragement there. And we all need that. But can we also find it in the Bible and should we be looking for it there? Absolutely. So if to William Moore's point, If you are looking at the Q drops as your daily guide, you're going the wrong way. It was never meant for that. The intention and the purpose was never to cause people to be completely enthralled by it. It's going to happen. There's always people who will do that. There are people who are going to misuse it. will there be people who will think for themselves and be encouraged to do so because of the Q drops? Yes. And there's enough of that. It's been effective that way. I really think what it was all about is getting people to start thinking and questioning things and, and, and jumping on and research and, and, you know, like, like, I don't think there's a comparison here between say the Bible or say learning, learning, you know, uh, going down the questioning path in any discipline, no matter what it is, whether it's history, whether it's math, whether it's, you know, the Q post, whether it's, it doesn't matter. If you're questioning things, that's the process of learning to learn again, of being curious, to be like a child, not like how most adults get into it and they get entrenched with their thoughts because they know, they know, they know. No, we don't. We know where we are at this point. But that doesn't mean that that everything could change and we could get knowledge that that we never had access to because they're hiding everything. And so, you know, we can't be too dogmatic. I mean, listen to kids. Kids are in Jesus said come as a child. Right. Be you know. Be open-minded a little bit and be willing to listen to the Holy Spirit as he leads us. He will never contradict himself. God does not contradict himself. But he will all of a sudden show you something, and it may shine an entire light on the way that you've approached life. And that's a good thing, not to be so stubborn. And think that we've got everything ironed out and we know everything because we just don't. And sometimes God only gives us stuff one step at a time because he has a plan. Plan's always God's plan. And so trust the plan. And people are saying trust the plan like the plan is Q's plan. You know what? I'm sorry. The plan's always been God's plan. God is the one that makes the plan for the world. And either we follow it or we don't. Well, and I think, too, what I've seen with the Q posts, they really are kind of, in a way, a lot more like the same way that President Trump's endorsements are, where it points you to where you need to look at things and investigate things. It's not something that you have to that you'd want to read the Q posts at face value and just say, Oh yeah, that's the thing that I need to learn today because most of them didn't actually contain any information. Right. They, all they did is basically pointed you to, Hey guys, here's where we need to have everybody investigate and find the information. So if you had 10 minutes to read a Q post, you're doing it wrong. Yeah. You know, Also kind of something else to think about going back a little bit here to where Karen was talking about TikTok and how things have changed there. There's a concept in IT security called a honeypot, and it really in a lot of security contexts, but the one I'm more familiar with is in IT, obviously. And a honeypot, what you do is you set up a computer or a server or even just a piece of a server like a virtual machine running purposefully insecure software. And the idea is that it's called a honeypot because basically you're trying to attract bad actors to it to try and attack that thing intentionally. And then what you can do with that if you're running a server or something like that is say, hey, okay, now we've got a list of the people that will go after this insecure server. So now we're gonna start blocking them on the rest of our servers to keep them out. Because now we've been able to identify the people that are going to try and hack us by purposefully putting something out there that's easy to hack. I kind of tend to think, and I'm not gonna say this about TikTok, But because frankly, I don't have enough information to make this judgment on them. However, I think there's a lot of these digital platforms out there that are effectively honeypots. I have my suspicions actually about several of them, such as I like a lot of the architecture of ProtonMail. But there's parts of that that make me kind of wonder, because there are some attack surfaces there, and you are putting a lot of trust in the people that are running the platform. Well, let me tell you what came out with the Bob Terry interview this weekend. There's a few clarifications I need to make to make sure everybody understands. Jeff Bongiorno was, just to go back, Jeff Bongiorno is running for the supervisor of elections in West Palm County, Florida. he changed and I, I, somebody was confused and I'm like, no, he was running for Congress and his website still says Congress, but he was miraculously put back on after the attack from the supervisor of elections to keep him off. And I, it looks like a concerted attack. I'm going to call it such prove me wrong. Um, and then he's running for the supervisor of elections. And then, um, And I lost my thought which way I was going to go with that. Say what you said just a minute ago, Ralph, because... I was talking about Honeypots and ProtonMail and I kind of suspect DuckDuckGo. Bob Terry, yes, they're all... And so is even Telegram is also doing it. They're all doing it. And the reason why they're doing it, and this came out of the Bob Terry interview, is because Microsoft literally was part of hacking this. through all of the sub organizations that they have. And so we have all of these GitHub and all of these other things that came out of Microsoft And we we have to remember that this is a concerted effort by some really bad people. They put all the source code out there for hackers and state state run hacking agencies. They put it out there on the Internet. Also, Tic Tacs, all their source code went out there, too. So I'm sorry, Twitter source code was put out there, too. So we can safely assume that all of it's been put out there because if they have the operating systems and they're in the chips and everything else, everything we have out there is has been hacked. That's why memes work so bad. So well, they're better. They used to work better. They don't work as well now because the AI can hack some of them, too. and suppress it based on that. But remember, everything has the ability to be hacked. So that's the first part of thinking right there. You know what, guys? I'm going to bring Dan Cummings in here while we're having this discussion because he's being real patient. Dan, you ready to come on? I'm just changing my equipment. I'm going to bring you into this discussion a minute while we're talking through this, and we'll make it official in a minute. So thank you for being patient for waiting. Yeah, so TikTok, I can't say for sure that they have turned into a honeypot. I don't know one way or the other. I kind of suspect and have suspected since basically the beginning that DuckDuckGo very well might be one. But once again, there's no proof. Nor should there be proof if they're doing a good job of it. And that's the problem. Way too much attention put on it. to get people to run there and think. So this is my concern and having been in those research networks for a long time. Anything that they tell you is a safe place to go, you're being set up. I'm going to tell you that right now. Unless you know people and unless you know people, you're probably being set up. So be real cautious in jumping to all of these little even grassroots organizations. I did some work with a private investigator on people that I suspected that was sent to me by a very well-known individual. Yeah. And I will, I will, I will jump in and try to figure out what's going on here because it's like, I think that we're not cautious enough. We went, oh, they're a nice person. This person's a nice person. They want to do this, that, and the other thing. Right. Have you checked them out, or are you just listening to the lying tongue of the snake? Because the same tongue of a snake is going to be saying what's going to bite you right in the behind. Opera's VPN service is another one that I'm pretty suspicious of. Mozilla's, really most VPN services, I'm pretty suspicious of those. But it's one of those things, too, that's like, it doesn't mean don't use them, but just be aware of... All of these things that say they're trustworthy may or may not actually be. And be cautious of what you're doing using them, you know. DNC, check this out. Yep, look it. It's right out in plain sight, guys. You don't have to be too observant to check this thing out, but it's right there. Just watch the DNC logo, 2020. See if we can bring Dan back on again. Dan's been real patient. Can you hear me now? Yeah, I can hear you. So welcome this morning, sir. Can you see me? Yes. Okay. First time the camera worked. This is fantastic. So if any of you guys want to jump off, Billy, can you stay on for a while? Are you ready to jump off, buddy? No, it's about time. I got to go set the crew up. So I do want to put any other words into this right now as we, this is kind of one of those squid discussions. We were everywhere. Yeah, a little bit. Um, No, it's the cautious warning of the people not to get too easily tied up in factions and divided amongst themselves. I mean, that's basically the whole premise of what it was derived under today. That's one of the One of the popular drives of humans is to link with other people who see things the same way you do, however, not necessarily understanding their motives or intentions behind it. So we need to be careful of the intentions of those that we affiliate with. It's basically the whole premise. And to end the entire conversation is, yes, the political structure here, especially in the state of Michigan, the end goal is to destroy it all and return it back to the individual community. the individual people and electing normal statesmen instead of political party agents into the halls of government here in Michigan. Yeah, if people are like standing against or everybody hates them, I guarantee you're probably talking to somebody that's for real. So this was the winner of our U.S. Taxpayer Party Nominating Convention, July 27th. And we got to do some alterations on this, but thank you all for participating in that and putting in your comments. putting in your opinions on this. It was a joint effort from all of us on the call here as well as everybody out there. I kind of like that process, Bill. I think we should do this again and just throw it out there and get people's opinions which way we should go. I'd like to see some people's ideas on increasing the membership and how if people will put themselves into that a little bit and also to help work on stuff in the state of Michigan. This state is just a complete crap show. And so we are the disruptors. We're the ones that are standing behind the trees and like the first revolution is the second revolution. And so we're the disruptors come and help us be a disruptor to the uniparty system because they're all in it. They're all involved. I would say that my first, I've got about a top 10 list of things that I would be done. And first thing would be, I think we need to fire all of them. and prosecute the legislature for treason because the governor could do that is fire them, put a complete halt on all taxes. All taxes should be halted until we get this nonsense figured out and, you know, incarcerate and or prosecute for treason all of the legislatures because they have and figure out who was actually in the know and who was being threatened, what the threats were because there's a lot of people in there that have been threatened. and were put in compromising positions. We need to find out exactly who those people were, emancipate them from their forced participation in some of this. And the ones that were really involved in it, goodbye, gone, out of here, put them on a C-130 and ship their sorry butts right down to Gitmo for an appointment with God. So I think that needs to happen. It's lawful. And it's the way sometimes we have to be a little bit unwavering in the way we deal with people. But thanks for being on, Bill. And we're going to continue to pound this July 27th nominating convention in Gladwin for the U.S. Taxpayers Party, the great disruptor in the state of Michigan to this nonsense. Because nothing's changing, guys. Look at what's happening. We have nothing changing. The only hope I have is Laura Trump, who's the head of the RNC, and I hope they get in here. And if they do, we will work with whoever wants to take this nation back, but it's got to be for real. Yep. Pay attention. Get on the website. Sign up for the newsletters. That way we can keep in contact with you that way as well. Yep, newsletters and all of it, okay? Thanks, guys. And who's jumping off here? I'm headed to work. Sorry, I did share your Washington's letter on Telegram, Bill. So that's out there. Yeah, I put it out there too. I've been putting all the links out there as we do them when we're online. So it's on the Telegram channels on both Karen's and mine. So we're all good to go. All right. Well, have a good show, Dan. I look forward to seeing you next time as well. Thank you. All right. So, Dan, welcome here today. And what are we talking about today? The concept of rights. For introduction, I will talk about rights, natural rights, God-given rights, false rights or pseudo-rights, those concepts that are not true rights, but are often talked about as such by our society, how to tell a difference and privileges and interests and how they help us to clarify what rights actually are. So beginning with rights, a right is something to which each person is entitled. at birth and thereafter. It is something to which others owe an obligation, although that obligation is the key to differentiating true rights from non-rights or pseudo-rights. Most of us are theists. We believe in God and Those of us who believe in God and rights generally believe in a concept of God-given rights. Expressed in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Very well defined there. All men, that means women also, all persons, are endowed by their creator, comes from God. Jefferson chose not to name a creator, which is a wise decision in a land that was headed for an increase in religious liberty. But he did give us the concept that rights simply don't spring out of nowhere. They come from God. Others call these natural rights. Natural rights, what does that mean? It means that they are there inherently. Natural rights go along with things like natural speech, natural thought, things that make mankind what the human race is, what differentiates us from the lower species. I'm not here to talk about animal rights. do not believe in that concept. And then Jefferson thereafter states the proper purpose of government to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. So the purpose of government is to defend and protect those God-given natural rights that we have. What are some of those rights? Some of them are enumerated in the Constitution. One is freedom of religion. The Constitution treats that with two aspects. First of all, forbidding Congress to give favoritism to any particular religious sect. It's called the Establishment Clause. Its nickname is the Establishment Clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning respecting any particular establishment of religion. Congress shall be neutral. And since all legislative power belongs to Congress, that means that no one else can infringe on religious freedom either because other institutions have no legislative authority at all for anything. Another one is freedom of speech. We have the right to say what we please. And there are others. There was great debate in the Philadelphia Convention about whether or not to have a Bill of Rights. Some of the participants there were afraid of the concept thinking that if we list certain rights that the government then would feel like anything not on the list was fair game for violation and would not require respect from the government. That viewpoint prevailed on September 17th when the Constitution was signed, but the first Congress of the United States under the direction of James Madison, changed that, decided that it was the right thing to do to have a Bill of Rights, partly because the Federalists, the advocates of the Constitution, had promised certain states that that would be the result of their ratification of the Constitution, and that James Madison intended to fulfill that promise. Let's go to a better understanding of rights by a question that I face frequently as a physician. I'm frequently asked by those who know that I also have an interest in constitution and constitutional law. Is medical care a right or a privilege? That question is a false question because medical care is neither a right nor privilege. Medical care is a product of the marketplace and does not exist unless there are those who are willing to provide it to those who wish to receive it. Those who provide it typically make that their living. They must charge for services because everyone needs an income. Everyone must derive an income from whatever activity he chooses to favor in life. And some of us have enjoyed our lives healing the sick. I've had great satisfaction in healing addiction, addicted people as an addiction physician. So Medical care is neither a right nor a privilege. The word privilege does not have much meaning except to be misleading. It makes it sound as though medical care belongs to some and not to others. But the key issue is that somebody's got to pay, and that generally belongs to those who are the beneficiaries. who have that obligation, just as everything else in life, the beneficiary, to get what he wants, must trade something that he has. Food, clothing, and other necessities are in the same situation. And that's not very remarkable, should be easy to understand. Well, the problem that I see, Dan, and this is that we've been under so much manipulation in the way that a lot of people think about things. They believe that we go after entitlements. We have these entitlements and those entitlements and blah, blah, blah. Someone has to work to pay for those somewhere. And either we work to support ourselves or to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and decide that we want something. We have equal opportunity to succeed. Doesn't mean that we're equal. But, but, and sometimes it's not, sometimes it's not always the same for everyone. Like I'm not going to be able to like, you know, Tota or Dan go, I'm here we go. There you go. Came back again. But we all have the ability to do something and to provide for ourselves and not look for somebody else to pay our own bills. So this whole entitlement thing, it's nice if we can get together and work together on things, that'd be the preferred way to do it. But nobody's entitled to really anything. We're supposed to work. That is correct. And that leads on to the next concept that's very important to understand. And that is the concept of positive rights and negative rights. This terminology appeared to my knowledge about a decade or so ago, maybe a little more. It's not one that I grew up with. I never heard it in my early studies of the Constitution. But now this is something that is frequently seen in political science textbooks, particularly those that are talking about constitutional law. It sometimes appears in legal journals. You're on your phone, Dan. I don't know if that's a microphone or what it is. Can you hear me? That's better. Okay. And the term positive rights and negative rights is frequently used. It's very deceptive because of the words positive and negative. Generally, we think of the word positive as being a nice attribute. We like people who have positive personality traits. We tend to avoid people who have negative personality traits. We look for positive things in our lives and try to avoid negative things. Health is positive. Sickness is negative. Poverty is negative. Adequate necessities of life is positive and so forth. But this whole concept is turned on its head upside down with the positive and negative rights because positive rights are infringements. Negative rights are the natural rights. So how did we get this terminology? It's fairly easy to understand the negative rights, freedom of religion, press, speech, habeas corpus, fair jury trials and so forth are all things where the government does nothing except, of course, in the judicial system. Freedom of religion is a negative right under this terminology because the government does nothing. Freedom of religion means I can worship Jesus Christ. I can worship Allah. I can worship the sun, moon and stars. I can worship the earth. I can worship nothing. I can declare that there is no supreme being and the government does nothing in the proper, when it's acting properly. The same thing goes for freedom of speech. I can say what I wish. No one's obligated to listen, but there should be no judicial juridical consequences for anything that I say, except maybe libel and slander. And there is controversy among libertarians as to the value of such laws. So what are positive rights? Well, One of those that comes up first in most discussions is medical care. People claiming that they have a right to medical care. Well, medical care does not exist in the abstract. Medical care must be provided. It requires people. It requires doctors to think, to question patients, perform physical examinations. cogitate on what the likely diagnoses are and what the best treatment would be. All of those things have a cost. Those who advocate that medical care is a right want the taxpayers to take up that cost. Similar concept in the right to education. Do we have a right to educate ourselves? Yes. We can read what books we want to read. We can listen to what programs we want to listen to, etc. We determine that for ourselves. But in the natural rights concept, we also pay for it. We decide what kind of education we will pursue and purchase. But the establishment The deep state thinks that it's the government's responsibility to educate everyone at taxpayer expense. So positive rights are something where the government does something. Negative rights are where the government does nothing. How can we just discriminate between the two? Two very simple questions. Negative rights are all characterized by one They all are variations on the right to be left alone. Freedom of religion means the right to be left alone in one's religious practices. Freedom of speech means the right to be left alone in what we speak, the press, what we write, and so forth. How do we distinguish positive from negative? rights the pseudo rights the false rights in this case with the definition of positive turned upside down all positive rights or the pseudo rights the claim to be positive rights are characterized by one a factor who is going to pay who will be required to pay somebody or some institution It's almost always the taxpayers will be compelled to provide what is wanted. A great deal of clarity between the two, positive rights and negative rights, can be gained by mentally transforming our negative rights into positive rights and see how abusive that would be. Let's take freedom of religion. Properly understood, freedom of religion means that I can believe what I want and I'm not answerable to others for it. But let's turn it into a positive right. I developed my own peculiar idea of God and heaven that I wish to worship. That's fine as far as it goes. But in my ministering, in my proselyting, nobody seems to be interested in my message. I would like a meeting house to preach in, but there are no listeners, no contributors to do that. So since I have a right to freedom of religion, the taxpayers owe me a meeting house, even if I preach to an empty congregation. That should be seen and understood as extremely abusive. And yet that's, what freedom of religion would be if it became a positive right. Same thing for freedom of the press. I have some ideas I want to publish. That's fine. I have a right to do so if I can buy a printing press or rent one or hire someone to print for me. But if freedom of the press becomes a positive right, then guess what? The taxpayers owe me a printing press. And that's extremely abusive. It should be obvious that that is abusive, that the taxpayers do not owe me a religious meeting house, chapel or sanctuary. The taxpayers do not owe me a printing press. The taxpayers do not owe me a compulsory audience for my freedom of speech when I have my ideas that I want to put out to the public. They only should go in a good system. They should only go to a willing audience, a volunteer audience, not to those who are compelled to listen. What do you think about the grants and grants coming in from the government? Government has a lot of grant money out there. Some foundations have it too. But is that included in when you're talking about money going into things? How do grants fit in with that? Grants have no place in the natural rights world from the government. I got to say more on that. Now, foundations are groups of people if they are voluntary. If contributions are voluntary, then they have their place in the marketplace. They have the right to express ideas, true or untrue, correct or incorrect, as long as the participation is voluntary. That means the financing is voluntary, the beneficiaries are voluntary, and so forth. Let's go on to The concept of interest, because interests and rights are not the same thing. It's natural in life to have many conflicts of interest, peaceable conflicts of interest. Workers would like to earn more. We all want bigger paychecks. Businesses want to succeed and have a profit. and keep payroll under control there's a conflict of interest there are there rights on both sides yes there are properly defined properly understood but are you right to a certain wage that we've codified into law as a minimum wage is not right That's an infringement on free choice in the marketplace. Do employers have the right to pull people in to their working conditions on their terms? The answer to that is no. Work is voluntary. It should be a voluntary arrangement between workers and businesses, voluntary on both sides. The essence of freedom of coercion in the marketplace, the ability for all people singly in groups. Some of our group arrangements are codified into law, such as partnerships and corporations and foundations and others. These are all okay as long as they're voluntary. There is a mistaken concept that rights often come in conflict and people analyze trying to decide, well, which right is more important than the other, which right should prevail. I am of the opinion that Natural rights, God-given rights, properly understood, and that properly understood is very important, do not conflict with one another. There are conflicts of interest, but not conflicts of rights, with the only exception I can think of is the sad state of the rape victim who has a terrible choice. The baby has the right to life. That woman has a right to choice as to whether or not she's pregnant, and that right was violated by a terrible crime. But beyond that, I don't see any true conflict of rights. Conflict of interest? Yes. Well, let's look at a few examples. One that has gotten a great deal of press in the last few years due to the COVID epidemic as such as it was. The great lie. The COVID epidemic is not all that the media has made it out to be. And I don't want to discuss all of that in details, but one example of how properly understood, the concept of rights helps us to get to correct answers. One conflict of interest is that of choosing a vaccine or not choosing a vaccine and businesses choosing vaccinated or choosing non-vaccinated persons. Now, obviously, everyone has the right to decide what is done with his or her own body. That includes the right to choose a vaccine or to refuse a vaccine. In addition, most people have an interest in employment. working for someone else in order to make a living. That's an interest, not a right. On the other hand, the business has the right to choose its employees, including the right to choose those who are vaccinated without the government interfering. And part of the problem in analyzing this conflict of interest is the intervention of the government on one side, tipping the balance. And that should not be the case. Do you think that that's tied to the money that they're getting, though, too? Because when you look at the medical nonsense, there's so much of it that's the private public. uh, partnerships going on that's driving it. And then these companies that have taken the government money, they're on the hook for it. You know, you take. Yeah. Money is a problem. Yes. And, uh, putting tax money into the situation always confuses the, uh, the rights. Uh, I do not have a strong opinion on the COVID vaccine. Uh, I'm sure that it's not as good as its advocates claim. It simply can't be based on a lot of facts to the contrary. It is probably not as bad as its most bitter enemies claim it to be either. Where is it in between? We'll never probably know the truth there because of government intervention that has tilted the marketplace. So here in Utah, many of our patriots a few years ago petitioned the legislature for a law that forbade employers from making the choice of choosing vaccinated workers over non-vaccinated workers. People have the right to choose or not to choose the vaccine, but employers have an equal right to choose those who are vaccinated if they choose to do so, if that is their analysis of the risk and the benefit in the business. Is that a conflict of rights? No, it's conflict of interest. the two parties do not come to agreement, then there is no work. There is no employer-employee arrangement. That might change if the employer finds that he comes up short on workers. He might decide that it's time to accept some who are not vaccinated, who choose otherwise. And of course the same is true for workers. Early on in the COVID epidemic, I went to a freedom event put on locally here with speakers brought in and such and open space for various freedom vendors. the concept of compulsory vaccination was a common setup for some of these. And when I met one fellow who was a fanatic in patient choice, he insisted patients have right to choose, and of course he was right. He also claimed that employers do not have the right to choose on their end of the bargain. And I said, what do you mean that some people have more rights than others and have a right to impose their opinion on someone else? And his answer was, employers are not people. The employer concept is a concept in law. businesses are not people. Business is a concept in law and employers and businesses don't have any rights. I found that quite frightening that so many people of the human race would all of a sudden be dehumanized and deprived of their own rights of choice. As I pondered that over the few years since that occurred, I have come to what I think is a sound answer, rebuttal for that argument. It's a little bit malicious, but it is tit for tat. In that case, I would say that workers and employee is a legal concept and employees are not people either. The employee concept is something that comes out of the law books. That is a frightening concept that I really do not advocate, but present it as a counter example of the idea that businesses are not people and don't have rights. Well, businesses are people or groups of people or arrangements of people. And those people have the same rights that they would have as individuals. to make group choices. It's a complicated issue. It's not very complicated if we keep two things in mind. What are negative rights? They're the good side, despite the word negative, they're the good side, and it's quite simple to determine negative rights. Are they a variation of the right to be left alone? True religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and so forth are all variations on the right to be left alone. The government is not allowed to take any action on our religious speech, press issues and many others. And how do we identify positive rights, which are the evil ones? despite the word positive. They are truly evil because they trample on the negative rights, the true rights, and it's very simple. Who is going to pay? So those two questions. Is it a variation on the right to be left alone? That's a true right. Is it required that someone pay someone else be pulled involuntarily into the arrangement to pay for it. And those are not true rights. They're false rights, despite the name positive that's been attached to them. So to me, that is not very complicated at all. It's not even very complicated when it gets down to conflict of interest in the marketplace. simply should look at where is the coercion? If there's coercion somewhere, if it's not a voluntary trading arrangement, if it's not a voluntary cooperation arrangement, then it's not a natural right. And those participating don't have the right to whatever it is that they're seeking. with the assistance of government coercion. The voluntary exchange of anything in the marketplace indicates that it's okay ethically. So I hope that does not appear complicated, does not appear complicated to me. And it should not be very complicated with the explanations I've been given. So I think it's as simplified and just saying, is it all about leaving you alone to do what you want to do and not interfering with that? That's the kingpin of all of them right there. And I like the way that you formed that as well as assumed rights, the positive rights assumed that somebody is going to pay the bill for you. Somebody is going to be compelled to pay the bill for you. It's the compulsion that's the violation. That's a lot of what we have going on in the United States of America right now. People think they're entitled to everything without working or contributing. I don't know about you, but I have a real big problem with that. So do I. I have a huge problem with that because honestly, none of us are entitled to anything. We're not entitled to walk into somebody's house and take what they have or take what they've made. Right now, When somebody is getting an entitlement of some sort, and I'm going to say there's some funds we paid into that should have been there and protected, like in Michigan, Social Security and everything kind of got dumped into the general funds. And the problem is that they tap out on everything and not for their assigned purpose. And so financially... It's been a theft of the original intention of all of these funds that were set up. But some of the true entitlements out there, they're basically sign up for this, sign up for that. The government's going to pay for it. Well, the government is us. It's taxpayers that have agreed to participating in that or compelled to pay taxes on things that we shouldn't have to pay taxes on. like property taxes, like all those things that are unconstitutional, the fees, all of this stuff. It's all unconstitutional and it shouldn't be. And when I see people coming across the border that get handed credit cards and housing and all of that stuff, they're not entitled to those. They didn't work for it. And it is theft of property. It's theft of the wealth of we the people to give to another entity. That money we pay in as taxpayers is supposed to go into a benefit to the taxpayer of some form or another. There's no benefit for funding the illegal invasion that we got going on right now for American citizens. It's absolute theft, and it shouldn't be. But I'm looking. It's like global – let's see. Global leaders are the ones that are running the clown show. Um, it's your Republican process. If I'm switching parties, does a person needs to change parties with the election? Okay. So we're going back to the last topic and such, but I love the way you form that. Do you, um, I, do you have any last words for the show today, Dan, that was actually a great way to, to end it on understanding positive and negative rights. two two points that I want everybody to go away with okay understand the reversal of positive and negative positive rights are not desirable in fact they're not really rights at all they're uh they're infringement on rights negative rights are the true god-given natural rights and secondly how do you tell the difference Two simple questions. A true right is simply a variation on the right to be left alone, one way or another. The right to be left alone, no coercion from the government. Positive rights that are not true rights, they're infringements, can be recognized by the coercion, the compulsion that someone pay for that for someone else's benefit. Basically, a crime of legalized plunder, as Frederick Bastiat put it. I'm sure that you are acquainted with Frederick Bastiat. The French patriot in the 19th century wrote a book called The Law. Have you read that? I bought that. You what? I bought that book, yeah. Okay, good. You'll find a sentence in there that is something like this. If you want to see, if you want to be able to tell whether the government is misbehaving, see if the government does for someone what he cannot do for himself without committing a crime. Now, those are the words of Bastiat. I have simplified that by calling these proxy crimes. Government is out of control and offending liberty when it commits proxy crimes for some at the expense of others. The government does the crime for us or for someone, for some group, rather than that group doing the crime themselves. Very easy concept to understand. That's a really great point. I've never heard that put that way, but that's a wonderful point. I'm the one who originated the terminology of proxy crime, so that's why you haven't heard it before. Yeah, I love that. I've been using that now for a year or two among patriots and asking, have you ever heard this before? Nobody's heard it before. The response is usually, you should take credit for it. Some of our best patriots have told me that. David Gilley, for example, you know David. Yeah, I just texted David and I said, hey, David, Dan's on live. And he's like, when are you going to interview me? I'm like, when I get time to read, because he's giving me a reading assignment. So, yeah. Probably on the militia, I would imagine, right? Yeah. David's amazing. And he's a wonderful wife. He's a stunning student. scholar on the militia of which uh I need to learn more and the place for me to learn it is from david but he immediately understood proxy crimes he says well you you take credit for that terminology I i think it is original with me I've never heard it before from anybody else but it's perfect it's the perfect description of what Frederick Bosch just said when he says, see if the government does for a particular person what he cannot do for himself without committing a crime. Well said. Well, let's call an end to it here today. Thank you for being on. Would you like to say a prayer today for our nation and for everyone? Yes, I'd be very happy to do that. Awesome. Our Heavenly Father, we are very thankful today and always. for the blessings of liberty and for the great work that was done by the in setting up our founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution with their wisdom and their experience. We understand that that was the high point of civic, civic association and arrangements that has deteriorated since then and we ask thy blessing upon those of us who wish to restore this country to that prior high point. We ask thee to bring forth the leaders and others who are willing to learn and grow and take action and to bless them in that work and We ask these blessings of thee in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Thank you so much, Dan. So, and this is that part of the show, boys and girls, where we still go to because I'm the best non-concealer who has ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. And we, I appreciate everybody joining us today as usual. And it's just to go through these things with Dan and Bill and Ralph and Karen and such. and continue to bring the truth forward it's an extraordinary process if you don't have an example today be one because our actions matter our thoughts and our words matter and encourage yourself and everybody else out there because we're taking this nation back one truth at a time as we learn things about positive negative rights and what liberty looks like and such and also inviting everybody to join the party, the U.S. Taxpayers Party Convention on July 27th. I'll continue to post about that. And put the date on your calendar and come join us that day. That would be awesome. So you have a great day today. God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love, and God bless America. Make it a great day, and we'll see you tomorrow.