Published Oct. 22, 2025, 9:03 a.m.
9am Liberty Essentials - Bill Mohr, Karen the Riveter and Ralph the IT Guy will be teaching the perspective on religion in government. This is a continuance of study of the Constitution and lawful self governance. We will be learning together the relevance of current issues and apply the Constitution for guidance. 10am Catherine Carter - What is Common Law? What is its relationship to our freedom? Why is the King James Bible translation inseparable from American Maxims and in our constitutions? Catherine is a grandmother who became concerned during the course of lock down - how we lost all of our 1st Amendment Rights. She came to the conclusion that the vaccines were not vaccines and were programmed to self replicate by definition. X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1ypKdqoDRyoGW Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1498537134811915 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v70mmys-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-10222025-liberty-essentials-and-catherine-cart.html https://rumble.com/v70mn14-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-10222025-liberty-essentials-and-catherine-cart.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-10-22-liberty-essentials-and-catherine-carter-common-law:9 BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, Bill Mohr, Karen the Riveter, Ralph the IT Guy, Catherine Carter
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it's the twenty second day of October twenty twenty five. And welcome to our show today. We're going to start out with Liberty Essentials and, you know, we're going to just talk with Karen and Rolf for a little while. And Catherine Carter is going to come on and we're going to be talking about common law. So this should be an interesting show. I got to tell you what, I got up this morning and I had a long trip yesterday. I'm tired and I'm trying to get myself together and get my brain working. But we got what we got and we're here. So anyhow, I'm going to bring everybody on and we'll start the show. Hey guys, how you doing? Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Well, I'm trying to get Catherine on here a minute. So she's in the background and connected. And man, I got a lot of stuff going on. Not sure I'm doing great with it, but hey, I got the Hulk mug of plenty. So I've got the caffeine ready to roll and here we go. So how are you guys doing today? Yeah, and I'm going to have to kind of apologize ahead of time today for being inarticulate because I've been fighting a migraine for several days. But you know what? The main thing is we're here. Yep. Kind of in that creepy Jack Nicholson way. Exactly. So what's going on with you guys? Actually, I found an article on what we were going to talk about this morning. We just talked for a few minutes. And I think this merits pulling this article up. Some people aren't going to like it, but it is what it is. I mean, we need to look at everything and talk about everything. So here we go. Oh, by the way, because we're working on notices and that sort of thing, in the last two days, I cannot believe the people that have popped up in order to help finding information. It's the craziest thing. And they're good at it. There's one gal that just popped up on TikTok and then the other gal that I had on Monday who was actively digging up information on how they're basically screwing us through the mortgage companies. Everybody has a role to play. How many times do I say that? We talk about it all the time. If you've got people that are that are popping up, as you said, and able and willing to learn and teach and provide in some form or fashion. And they are all valuable skills that we need to do what we got to do. So that's wonderful. Yeah, it's kind of cool to see that happen. Now, let's see, I'm looking at I don't know why this didn't come through. Okay. Talk amongst yourselves a minute because I want to show, um, I want to bring, uh, this article forward a minute and I think will be very helpful in today's conversation though it might be a little bit uh sensitive to some people okay so we gotta we gotta lay our biases down okay all you beautiful feminazis out there we're gonna lay our biases down and we're gonna look at things for what they are and have the discussion about traditional roles of women in society let me bring something up here a minute and i think this could be fun to talk about first of all we're gonna go back to the bible real quickly because you got to go back to the Bible. You got to have a standard. And I'm going to bring this up. Hang on. Now, I'm not a real fan of Bible Gateway anymore, just because they've got everything on there with ads. It's become a pimping the Bible for money situation, just like a lot of things are right now. And I don't appreciate that. But hey, they've got a good, I'll try to Knock out all their ads. I'll look at it here. So, Ralph, you want to go over this? Because we started this conversation, Ralph and I did yesterday. And I thought, oh, let's talk about this today. It could be fun. It goes back to Liberty. Go ahead, Ralph. Yeah, so what we were kind of talking about yesterday is how the – the way that we have conflated the concept of equality with sameness, and that there are some inherent differences between the way that men and women are wired. And specifically, we were talking about some of the interactions that men and women have in the workplace. in that a lot of times men will tend to kind of tease, poke or rib each other or joke around as part of their interactions in a workplace. And it kind of tends to annoy women. Oh, it doesn't just annoy women. I'm going to tell you what it does. It kind of infuriates us, which the guys think is even funnier. Okay. But from a guy's perspective, the, That ribbing and poking each other is actually, it tends to be a way of diffusing tension in that that tends to be how guys express camaraderie. And when that is gone and there's no humor in the workplace, that a lot of times is when there's an indicator that there's a big problem afoot and um whereas it uh i guess i don't know how to how to how we were how i worded that yesterday and how we were talking about that you ever better yeah that Yeah, your point to this was that because men, this whole thing of trying to make us sane, not just equal, okay, but trying to make everything the same. We've got to have diversity, equity, inclusion. We've got to have all of this. Instead of looking at each other as individuals with individual gifts, with individual things we have as talents and that sort of thing, and with different ways that we think. So what I thought was interesting is the difference between, say, my husband and I is incredible. I mean, we're really similar in a lot of ways, but the way we think about things is very different. And the traditional roles of women were the ones that really held society together. The conversation came up with is that I was having a problem, an employee problem, And it came down to all the women in the office basically rebelling against the guy that runs the facility. And not really sure exactly what happened. I found out more information this morning. And there might have been just a little bit of merit to it. There usually is if you wait long enough and you listen to people on what was going on. But something that a guy thinks is funny... the women didn't think was funny at all. He didn't mean anything by any of it other than the fact that it, and it wasn't, it just really wasn't a big deal, but, but the women got insulted and and that was the crux of the problem yesterday. And so we started talking about how the difference between how men and women think, does that kind of summarize it a little bit? That kind of summarizes it and how we communicate differently. And I think a lot of the problems come in because of that conflating of equality with sameness in that unless you can understand and express that there are actually differences there and that the differences are not bad, but they are there, that it causes a lot of unnecessary friction. Well, and you look at either, there are some similarities and there's also every single one of us is different in our own right. So some people such as myself have a lot more of a direct way of saying things where most women they'll be a little softer and they kind of try to get to the issue, not in quite such a direct manner, which gets me in trouble with a lot of women. Okay. And men don't have a problem with it. They're like, yeah, I get it. And I'm like, oh, I'm not going to change. I'm too old and too ornery to change. It's just my personality. And if you don't like it, then find somebody else to talk to. And I'm okay with that, right? So there's differences, but there are some similarities involved. Just like when I was working on grief and loss today, and we were creating materials to help people through the grieving process. When people die and studying the traditional way for men to grieve when somebody dies was get a project and they work together. And that's how they process through their grief. They had to be doing something to process where women, we sit around and we talk and we talk about memories and emotions and that sort of thing. And guys are like, shut up, shut up, shut up. I don't want to deal with the emotions right now. They can't, they have a harder time with that. One of the reasons too, why therapy works so poorly for men. Yeah. And it's something that I was working with a guy that wrote for men's health and he was the one that pointed it out. He said, when you look over the years on how men deal with it, they'll get together as a group and they'll work on a project. They'll play sports, they'll do something, but it's a set around doing something where women will sit around typically and want to talk. And, and, it kind of makes a lot of sense. And then you, you, you know, the men would get together and build a coffin if somebody died where the women would, you know, prepare food and they would talk and they had more talk time to, or just sit around and, and, and be there for each other. It's very, it's very different. And, and, and that's okay. I mean, that's not a bad thing. It's okay. It's the way we're wired. Well, and I think that's one of the problems that we have with modern society is that we have lost a lot of those traditional feminine gender role jobs where we have tried to mechanize them and done it poorly. Because when you look back at history, a lot of the Feminine gender role jobs were about refining things the masculine ones were about bringing bulk ingredient things to the women for them to be able to refine them and Like for example, I think we had we had talked about you found someone that did some flour that was like small batch flour and it was some of the best flour you'd ever had and double ought flour so i i was on a mission to recently to learn how to bake bread really really well okay and uh had some inspiration for doing some sourdough i've done some in the past but i know somebody who's baking sourdough bread right now and found a fourteen percent high protein flour fourteen percent protein flour And people are losing weight on this like crazy because it fills you up and it gives you the nutrition you need. So I bought some Annapolitano flour from Italy. That's about a four percent protein flour. But I was looking at this and looking at the difference between a double-aught ground flour and the different flours that are produced. and what that actually means. So when they do that, they take out a lot of the coarse parts of the grain and they leave more of the nutrition there, not just the bulk or the fiber. Sure. And back in the day, that would be something that would be more of, you know, that it wasn't just, you talk about, oh, cooking, cleaning, that kind of thing, but it wasn't just about cooking. It was about managing the nutritional needs of everyone around them. And the psychological needs. Yeah. And we've lost a lot of that. And that now I think a lot of our health problems actually come back to the fact that we've lost a lot of that. And now we buy foods that are already processed, where we've tried to mechanize the refinement of the nutrition. And we've done it very poorly where so much of the food that we eat is so fake or over-processed that it's no longer nutritionally sound. Yeah. It really devalued the worth of women in the home and, and you know, wanting to double taxes and everything. I mean, that was, we, we have the ability to have a lot more stuff mechanized, but I really do think it takes a good deal of the quality out of our, out of our lives. by having the homemade, handmade things that actually care for our families. And I very much appreciate that when people do those things. You know, look at people who spin yarn or who make handmade sweaters or sew or that sort of thing. Yep, any of that. You look at the old clothing, it held up. It held up to incredible amounts of abuse. You look at some of the old mining clothes for coal miners and stuff. That stuff was nearly indestructible. Look at the way the Amish live now. Their cloth that they use in their clothes is much different than what we have. And it's made to last. Multiple washings for being out, you know, outside working it. Yeah, there's the quality there. But then, too, you look at the, if you actually start reading literature from the eighteen hundreds and earlier, and part of that is I'm part of a preservation project for scanning, digitizing and turning into e-books, old antique books. And as part of that, you end up reading quite a bit of old literature. And if you read old literature, old letters, old writings, not just read about them and about what society was like, but read the actual accounts from people at the time, women ran society with an iron fist. You know, they held the communities together. They made sure that everyone was okay, that they were healthy, that society was on the rails. They were the moral backbone of the community and kept everything safe. kept everyone cohesive and as a team. The men would go out and do things and come home, but the women ran the churches, the social events, the family get-togethers, all of the things in the community that brought multiple people together, women were in charge of that. women were in charge of teaching largely, you know, most of the, most of the teaching was, was done. You know, you have the one room school houses and stuff and, and the teachers at the time, a lot of them were women. And so they were the ones that were bringing up the children and teaching them all of the skills that they would need for math, reading, writing, all of that kind of stuff. And, um, So they were involved in, again, kind of a refining step of refining society. Society can exist on its own without that, but it doesn't thrive. They were involved in refining society. They were involved in refining children. They were involved in refining all of the crops that were brought in, from turning processing like corn and wheat and that sort of thing, processing wool from the animals. The men would go out into the field and do the bulk grunt work kind of stuff and bring that for women to refine. And we've lost a lot of those traits because, and I think probably one of the wisest things that I've seen on that subject is I saw someone a while back who did a presentation on how feminism in its early days had two different ways that it could have gone. one of them would have been to take those feminine traits and socially value them as much as the masculine jobs and that was how things worked for a very long time is that those those jobs were highly highly valued and instead the other way that it could have gone and the way that it was chosen by our society at large was to see those jobs as being beneath people and that the only ones that held any social value were the masculine jobs and then shoehorn all of the women into the masculine jobs. And that's ultimately the way we ended up going is saying those other things are beneath us. We're going to try to mechanize them and all of that to eliminate those jobs instead. And you could see why it was chosen by the higher-ups because it devalued all of the jobs that they had to pay people for and ultimately reduced wages as well as household income because it forced both the men and the women to have to work in the same kinds of jobs and compete with each other rather than complement each other. And that broke down a lot of things in society. And I think a lot of the problems that we see nowadays are in part due to that. You know, you look back in the day, not just running society, but if you read through Proverbs and read through a lot of the things that were truly valued in what women did, one of those refinement steps was also that women were in charge of running the household finances as well as investing. The men would bring in a certain amount of income and it was the woman's job then to take that and grow it and make sound investments and try and grow that into something that was actually more useful. And once again, that's, you know, there's a bunch of different things in Proverbs that are like, Oh, this is, To back up to when you hear about people talking about the patriarchy and how all of that keeps women down and all they were good for was cooking and cleaning. It's incredibly sexist the way they portray that. And it's not accurate to the way that things were in history. Nor was it accurate to the way they were supposed to be. Women's job in a home was vastly, vastly wider than what They try to portray it as now through propaganda. And we've lost a lot of those tasks to trying to make men and women and men and women's jobs the same rather than equally valued. It's a good point and I think it's all good points to study history and it was about social cohesiveness and also what the value of having a family and the value of parents raising their children. The disturbing thing that I see right now is parents that put their kids in everything and honestly, not only is it school, but it's every minute of their day is packed with extracurricular information. And then they don't get to really spend the time with their children to teach them or actually develop a relationship. I was watching something. There's a guy I like to follow and I brought him up before. And his name is Chase Hughes. And he wrote a lot of manuals for the CIA, psychological manuals and that sort of thing, how to. how to explain human beings and such. Now, I like what he says, but realize he's talking about manipulating people full time. Okay, so you got to read it with a little bit of depth of critical thinking there. And I think that the devaluing of people and making, I don't know how to say this. Let me ponder this again, because the value of a mom in the home, it just can't be, it can't be stated enough that parents that spend time with their children and mom in the home, or I don't know, it increases the quality of life to have somebody that's not going to work. And I mean, I've always worked. Okay. And I went, I went to college. I went, I got way too much college. Okay. And so, but, but to go to work and raise the children and get people to different places and, you know, get the laundry done and the house cleaned and all that sort of thing. It is an overwhelming impact on the family. It really is. if you if you have somebody that stays at home, the nice thing is, is that there's time to breathe, there's time to really pay attention to people's state of being around you, and volunteer and and the quality of life issues go up incredibly. And they're not double taxing you, you know, it's like, it's like I love I love raising my kids. And because I work for myself, I had the flexibility of choosing when and how I worked. And I always brought my kids to work with me. Actually, they went with me whenever I was working and they learned a lot, probably why my children were pretty advanced in what they, in, in what they know. But, but, uh, there's a good discussion to have. To me, um, My mom was, uh, for at least the first several years of our lives, she was strictly at home. She didn't work outside the home. It wasn't until my dad, my dad moved his family because he wanted to learn more about the Bible. So he went to a Bible school basically. And then in order to supplement the income, my mom took a job. But we were all in school then, and we had some basics down. But I wasn't homeschooled, and yet, in a sense, I was. I was already reading by the time I was in kindergarten. That's why they wanted to move me up to first grade from kindergarten. And they considered that advanced, and we're all like, Um, mom just read to us. It was just, that was just, was it was expected for us. And if she had put a little more effort into the concept of homeschooling, we could have been even more advanced, but my brothers and I, we were, we were all, we all did well in school. And that was because we were kind of expected from, from our early formative years to, to try to learn and learning was good and fun. And, and, And we were of that age where we didn't have babysitters. We learned how to play outside. We didn't have, video games were just starting. So we had an Atari. Ooh, you know what I like to do with Atari? I played a hangman game and I learned how to spell and things like that. So it wasn't even like, we were not wasting our time with electronics. we had a record player that we could sit and listen to and use our imaginations to come up with the images of the story instead of just sitting around the TV all day. So I think that, um, Mothers, mothers in the home teach their children so much. And you said they get to know them and know exactly what they need, when and how. And when they don't have that and the fathers are not involved to discipline them. And provide the boundaries, you know, the bumper pads like in the bowling alley to guide them in the direction that they should go and especially to teach the young men the limits and how they are to behave. Who else is going to do that? Now you have the schools. And what are the school systems like? They teach the kids to have disdain for their parents and people around them that are trying to help them stay away from things that are harmful. A good parent doesn't tell a child, oh, you just do whatever you want to do and run amok, right? A good parent says, well, let's talk about this a minute because there's going to be some consequences down the road. And not for me, just from life, because this is the way the world works. If you go in this direction and this is going to be all on you. I remember telling my kids when they were younger, I'm like, if you do not study and you do not apply yourself now, because it even says Solomon says that even a child is known by their actions. you're going to probably be doing something like fast food, flipping burgers, which I'm not going to say that's a bad job. Okay. That's a, but it's a stepping stone job. If you plan your life out to, to learn and every step of the way I worked as a waitress, I did, I did some cook work when I was in a restaurant, when I was a teenager, it's a, it's a stepping stone or should be, and could be a stepping stone job. Right. But I'm like, if you blow this because of lack of applying yourself, I said, I'm going to go in and I'm going to sit there and drink coffee every day and look at you like, how's that working for you? And think about this too. When you don't value those homemaking skills, it's, It's like if you were to say that while an army is only as good as the front line, none of the supply chain logistics matter. It's just the people that are out on the front line. You know, it's as ridiculous as that to say, you know, how's an army going to continue to advance without supply lines for food, fuel, ammunition, and being able to Medicine, being able to transport the injured for treatment back behind the front lines. There's all of that, the strategy that has to happen behind the front lines, not just the ongoing tactics, but the overall strategy. It's kind of similar in a way in that we have really kind of gutted the core of society by devaluing it and saying, oh, those are lesser jobs when they're not. Well, look at the focus now is it used to be families work together. Okay. And they didn't focus on, hey, I'm going to give my kids every dream they ever had. They taught them to work. They taught them valuable skills. And that can't be understated at all. And it was very bonding. And as a homeschool mom, if you are learning with your kids and teaching them and talking about valuable things, Instead of the conversations that I hear younger people now is going to the bar and hooking up with people on the weekend. And I'm like, who thinks this way? You know, very temporary, but there's no go for it. And honestly, one of the things is going to say that Chase Hughes said is that one of the greatest, the worst forms of mental illness, the most prevailing is wanting the praise of strangers. It's true. You know, instead of the people in your own home, look at people that want, you know, lots of likes. These people are strangers or that all of their relationships are built online instead of in real life where you have to work out some things sometimes when you don't quite agree with each other. You have to learn those skills of bringing people together and conflict mediation. And finding the best answer, not just being right and having people tell you what you really want to hear just to reinforce our biases. That goes away in a strong family. And people start valuing the other people around them and actually caring about them and investing in their lives, their happiness, and being there to keep them on the rails. It's very loving. It's not restrictive. It's the ultimate in love. Okay, so another gender role-based thing that used to be that we've gotten away from is I hate the term administrative assistant. And the reason why is because we used to have secretary as the term for that. And when you look back at the way that offices used to run, the secretaries ran the office. They were the brains of the operation and made or broke an office. And most of the time the secretaries were women because they had those innate social skills to be able to determine who was a threat to the company, who was an asset to the company, and be able to do that filtering, basically firewall job for the company. And the fact that we came up with a different term for it, administrative assistant, is one of those things that, for example, like sanitation engineer, Instead of garbage man, it indicates that people did not have respect for the original term enough that someone came up with a new term for it. And it was what it comes down to. Yeah, it bugs the heck out of me because those jobs should have been respected for what they were under their original term. And people lost sight of that and had to come up with a new term to try and make it more respectable. Well, that really goes back to the conversation that initiated what we had talked about yesterday, Ralph, with the problem with somebody wanting special privileges who was in management. That's really what it came down to because they didn't want to have to do X, Y, Z when everybody else was because they felt they were better than that. And my response to that was, is that if you're in management in any way, shape or form, you should be doing that in more than what the people that you're managing are called to do. You don't sit there like a little king or queen and tell everybody what to do if you're not willing to do it. And it creates a huge rub between management and those that are actually doing the work. Like I always tell the people out in the field, I'm like, you know, if I stop and I talk to somebody, I'm like, well, you know, I'm kind of like the most worthless person out here because you're actually doing the work and I'm just stopping the work to talk with you. So, you know, that respect going back and forth, you know, but the special privileges are, in management is a real problem, but that goes to every single one of us, you know, we shouldn't be above doing anything. And if, if just that mindset of get the work done, stop, stop trying to make it a, a superiority or an ego, you know, an ego thing. All of those jobs are valuable and are worthy of respect and they need to be done. And that's why it bothers me when I see modern terms like that trying to usurp an older term just to try and make it respectable. Because by golly, if you're going to do that, you should be respecting the original term. I mean, we still have secretaries on boards. Why would we get away from that term in a company? Go ahead. Some of this is bringing it right back to your first commentary regarding equality. So if everybody is considered equal, there's respect for everyone regardless of what kind of job or role you have to play. And again, it goes to the parts of the body concept. Everybody has a role to play. The garbage man that works for the company that goes around and picks up all the garbage and disposes of it properly is just as an important person or man or woman as the manager or the secretary, administrative assistant. Whatever they're called, they all have a role to keep the business going. And so it is in the family. We all have a role to play. And always in thinking of this, I bring it up sometimes. I like to bring up some scripture, if you don't mind. No, please. Ephesians five says, This is one that gets people in a little twist sometimes. A lot of a twist. A lot of a twist. I'm looking at King James because that's the Bible I had next to me. Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church, and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her. that he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh and his bones. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. And then in chapter six in the King James, children obey your parents and the Lord for this is right, is the very next verse. What this means is, The way I see it anyway. If a husband is doing his job in the family, if he is honoring his role, he is easy for the wife to respect. And if she respects him when he says, I think we should do this or that, she can agree to it and then it gets done. And there is no reason to argue because she trusts and respects him because she knows that he in turn loves her. But sometimes we have to remind one another that this is the thing. This is what the scripture says. Husbands will be the protector and the provider and they forget. That there is an emotional and a moral role to play within the family like you were talking about earlier, Donna. He has an important role in guiding his children just as she does. But sometimes it's harder for him. Like Ralph was saying about the man on the job. you know, ribbing each other. That's the way they do. But when they get home, they can't do that to the wife. They have to soften things. They have to remember to show a love and affection toward the wife to honor her and cherish her and what she does. And if she respects him, he will want to provide and protect them even more so. But these are things that sometimes are hard for women because if a man doesn't do what he's supposed to do, she is going to step up. She will out of necessity. Women are great leaders, but they will step into that role perhaps a little more than they should if the men are not doing their job. And it becomes more of a strain for them. Look at how they've attacked this, though, because they've really turned men and women into, into a competition rather than something that just should kind of work, you know, rather than complimentary. And that's really unfortunate because it really does like slap the gifts that God gave us right in the face. You know, it's like, like, there's no way I'm going to compete. in any situation with a thirty five year old guy. There's no way I'm not going to compete with a sixty year old guy physically. I'm kind of smallish, really. And, you know, it's like as far as women, I'm in pretty good shape. You know, at sixty years old, you know, I can I can ride horses for whole days at a time and it doesn't even bother me, right? But you still don't have the same genetic makeup and there's no reason to try to compete. It's just like watching women in boxing when they started doing the transgender stuff. To me, I am so horrified. It is horrifying to see that, that they would push this agenda of sameness to the point of having it be almost like a freak show of watching women getting abused. Well, and again, it's sameness over equality. That's what was happening there. And I'm like, who sits and watches this stuff? This is horrific. And why isn't somebody calling this out for what it is? It's abuse of women. And it's gaslighting, again, toward sameness over equality. It's not valuing the differences. It's not valuing the... the things that people choose to do separate from each other it's only valuing the one side of things and it causes a lot of problems and to back to kind of Ephesians there and talking about the the roles there as far as like leadership I am still firmly in in the camp of that back in the back in the days that, you know, were firmly under the patriarchy, it wasn't men that were running things, it was women that were running things. And you look at it, and men were respected for their wives. You had any of the social events that were being run, were being run by the wives, any of the parties or anything like any of the get togethers that were outside of actually getting things done that would cause social respect or embarrassment in a community. All of those were run by the women. You talk to anybody that was in a lot of large families at the time, you talk to any of them growing up, who were they most terrified of as a kid? It wasn't the, it wasn't the dads and grandpas. It was the aunts and the moms and the grandmas that kept everybody in line and kept everything cohesive and working together. And we've, we have gotten so far away from valuing that, but it is so incredibly important. Well, let's take a look at President Trump and Melania right now, okay? Because I want to be Melania when I grow up, okay? I think she is just what a fabulous, beautiful, amazing woman. I actually have a file on her outfits because I think she dresses so well. She is one very... amazing class act. And she makes President Trump look really good. He looks good on his own. I'm going to give you that with what he's doing and such. But to have a wife that's as beautiful and wonderful as Melania as they stand there as a couple together, I mean, there, there's no, there's no, it doesn't appear to be any competition there, but they absolutely compliment each other. And just in case Melania is listening out there, I absolutely love Melania. She is just, she's, she's amazing. Well, and on that note, guys, I'm going to have to get going. I've, I've got a meeting I got to get to. So. All right. Have a great day, Ralph. Thanks for coming on today. This was a discussion that was had because Ralph and I were discussing. I'll let you go, Ralph. Okay. So this discussion was motivated by something that Ralph and I were talking about yesterday, and it was the difference between how men and women address problems in the workplace. And, uh, your years ago, I was meeting with a bunch of guys and I'm like, I need to, I need to do a training for women to be able to understand what guys are actually saying in the workplace. That kind of get along pretty good with everybody. Cause I don't take things too seriously. And, uh, and, uh, it was, it was a funny discussion. One of the guys looked at me, they were, they laid their heads down on the table. because they were crying as I was talking about this. And the one guy comes up and he wipes his eyes. And he said, he said, if you could help us, we're in an office of forty women. He said, I will pay you any amount of money that you ask if you can get the women to get along. It was absolutely hilarious. Well, I was thinking I'm sitting here thinking and we don't have children, so we don't have that element in my household, but we have a husband and a wife. who are both in a church. And so we try to respect those rules. And we have similarities and we have differences. But I think we are best when we have a project to do. It could be like you're coming up pretty soon. As an example, we're going to have to be doing some things outside to prepare for winter. One of those things is we're going to have to wrap our chicken pen. so that our chickens have a place to be Just scratch around and be themselves. Enjoy the weather when it's not freezing cold. Because they'll spend a lot of time inside the box in their coop when it gets really cold. But when it's not super duper cold, they'll be out scratching around, looking around, trying to absorb some sunlight. And they can't do that if they're wrapped in a box. So we'll try to make a way to keep the wind and the snow out of their box. so that they can be comfortable. That's going to require some work. And I'm usually the one thinking ahead about it and asking some questions about what the plan is. This year will be a little different. It's only our second year with the position that we have out there. We moved the coop from where it was to a new place. And There's been some changes out there and we used some of the materials that we had there for the winter as part of our new greenhouse this spring. So that material is no longer available. We're going to have to come up with a plan together. If I do not communicate this ahead of time, it gets closer to the day and I start asking questions and his idea could be entirely different from mine. And then we're looking at each other like, what? And I think it through to the nth degree. He tends to work it out as he goes. And He can't stand when I'm saying, he's got a whole plan. He starts to work at it. He says, let me show you what I did. And I'm like, But what about when you, when this circumstance happens and he sees it as a criticism, I see it as I'm thinking outside the box. I'm, I'm thinking of all the parameters that are likely to happen and how are we, you know, how can the gate open if there's snow on the ground? You know, I think of things like that, whereas he's just, he might have a brilliant idea that just needs to be done. Right. But he, together with both of our minds i love it and it makes me feel really good when i can compliment his plan or i bring a rough plan he says oh i see what you're saying and then he says that's a great idea oh i love it i love it when he says that because He's usually trying to think of everything. And here I come along thinking of something completely different and complementing his plan. That is when we can be really good together. And also when the thing about projects around here is we don't always communicate everything. really well. We were just our brains are not made the same way. And so if we don't practice effective communication, it can be a hard task to accomplish. But it requires two people a lot of times. And so I've learned to take an extra step or two to to practice that communication between us. I've learned over time. what he needs in that communication. And he's, he's trying, he's still figuring out what I need. You know, we were, it's, it's an ongoing process and that's what marriage is. And that's why sometimes people are like, you don't even know each other. You're getting married too quickly. Um, And we were one of those couples that are like, yeah, he's the one I want and I'm the one he wants. So why are we going to wait extra time? We were also fairly mature when we got married. I think I was twenty seven when we met and he was my first boyfriend because I was following the scripture and I wasn't shopping around. So my eyes don't wander like a lot of other people do. But so we have a stable marriage, but it is still one that requires some work because we don't think alike. We're we're made, created differently for a purpose. And I am grateful for that. You just said something that was really significant there earlier, because you can take that. And, you know, we've been talking about male and female relationships and we don't think alike. OK, guys. End of story. If you've ever been married, you'll sit there and go, yeah, and I didn't even need to take gender studies to get this figured out. Right. But this goes to just working with people in general. Everyone has their own ideas on how things need to be done. And I think one of the biggest things that we can focus on is what it says in the Bible is that love is not easily offended. Love doesn't get offended. So you look, if you can look at people from your spouse or even people in the workplace as their own little, they're like, we're like a bunch of little kids running around the playground, throwing rocks at each other, even if we're older. Right. Just because sometimes it's fun. Somebody times, you know what I mean? When your kid, when kids, kids do stupid stuff like that. And I don't mean like saying stupid stuff of equates with the rocks I'm talking about. Right. And, and, you never know why, why people act the way they do or what they're actually thinking. You know, when somebody comes at you and they're offensive or they're just, you're looking at him going, and you walk away going, I prefer animals, right? And we all do it. And so, so anyhow, the reality is, is if you can look at it as an observer going, they're just trying to survive. Now there's some people in the world that are absolutely, totally evil. But you have to have the discernment to know whether you're looking at somebody who's just kind of trying to survive or somebody who's truly evil. The No Kings protest was one of those things that, because I stopped and talked to people at the No Kings protest. And there were a few handlers there, which no doubt they were being paid. There was no two ways about it. But the majority of people were grandpas and grandmas that showed up. And they were expressing more fear than hostility towards the other side. It was basically they were afraid. And so when you meet people and realize what their base motivation is, are they afraid? Is it something that is, did somebody, did somebody, you ever hear about the analogy of kicking the dog? You know, somebody's at work and they have a fight. Let's say that the owner of the company has a discussion or a disagreement or fight with somebody that's working underneath them. And and he's he's they go back and forth. And finally, the guy leaves and say the VP goes on and starts yelling at the secretary. Secretary is yelled at now because of that. She goes home and yells at her kids and her son goes and kicks the dog. Right. That's just it's a it's a story of how we pass on our intentions to other other people may just have a really bad day. And there's usually a really good reason for it. So, you know, you got to cut people a lot of slack and correct them when you can and and such. But, you know, I work at a very male centered world mine and I have for years. But also, you know, it's me and most of the people that that get to the point of CEO or or business owners, most of them are male. If you had to break it, break it up into into an actual statistic And I don't harbor any bad feelings against men or women, really. I just look at them trying to get their jobs done most of the time and try to keep my mind on the goal. And the goal in a family is to have a peaceful family where everyone... grows and becomes a better version of themselves and works together and sees the world as an outreach of that, where they're there to serve and be helpful without it being a transactional situation. What's really become very disturbing, not only in society but in families, is the transactional nature of our interactions. If we're doing transactional interactions, I don't care what area we're in, we're on the wrong side of how we're supposed to live. So I think I've been thinking about putting together something that is a, are you really working well with the world type thing? Do you hold doors for people? And I mean, when, so my husband, he gets on our boys a lot. He's like, When he's here, he'll just ride him. He'll say, your mother should never have to put gas in her gas tank. You guys get out there and pump that gas and make sure her car is full, which I think that's really nice. I love that. He does it because he loves me, and he's also teaching our boys to be responsible for the world around them. That's what that scripture is for. I pump my own gas. It's not that I don't or have anything against it, but he's teaching them to pay attention to the world around them, right? And I think that that's important. So I think we should open doors for everyone, males and females, and hold the damn door. Don't just walk in and, you know, walk in and kind of fluff it in their face. Stop, hold the door, let them walk in before you. It'll make you feel really good. It'll make them feel good. It's a win-win for everyone, right? Or when you, today it impacted me. I went to the gym this morning. I usually go and I'll walk with weights or I'll do something for a couple of miles and If I'm not outside or doing something just to just to stay in shape. Going past people and saying hi or remembering their names and saying hi, such and such. Do you know what impacted me this morning? A guy walked past me and I'm like, good morning, you know, just being friendly. And for no other reason, I didn't know his name, but I just, good morning. Do you realize how few people walk through life and actually have somebody come up to them and know their name? Hi, Karen, how you doing today? Or how you doing? Hi, good morning. That person may have no interactions with anyone else all day long. And you may be that person that's in a community that actually will say their name, smile at them, acknowledge their existence. We all need to up our game on that one because I think that we would have a lot healthier communities if we acted with a little bit of care for human beings around us. And all of these things that we're talking about, we have seen them slash they tear down These basics of scripture and family structure, recognition that we're all made differently. We all have a role to play, some by God's design. Everything about how to show that you care for one another and that you are together. In a community, you get to know each other usually because you interact with each other. And if you destroy the interaction, you're not seeing a cashier. You're seeing a robot or a machine do everything for you. You can just buy everything you need on Amazon. You're not going anywhere and interacting with any kind of expert to learn how to do something. You're finding the instructions on YouTube. You're not interacting with anybody in your community. You're not going to the public meetings. You're not learning about anything that's happening in the world around you, local to you, where it makes a difference. And all of these things are a breakdown of what matters the most. They have weakened our society by doing that. And so if we're going to see a restoration of a representative Republican form of government, We're going to have to build up the family again like we're supposed to. I know that there are a lot of people out there who see it. Some who see it now who didn't see it before. That compare and contrast concept. There's a few generations there that are capable of seeing. Like I just said, we played outside. We didn't have the internet. There's a couple of generations now that have not experienced that. But my generation does. And the generation or two above me who is still living knows what it's like to have these values and how to shape society with it. We're still capable of restoring that. And we are still capable of restoring our government to the way that it's supposed to be with these values intact. It's going to require some work. It's going to require a change. I call it a paradigm shift. It really is. But I think it's totally possible to do. And it starts within your house. It starts within your own home. Yeah, I think so, too. I'm going to bring Kitty on right now. And Catherine, how are you doing? I'm good. How are you today? I'm doing great. Thanks for coming on today. We had a wonderful discussion yesterday, and I thought I would bring you into this discussion on the changes in values that we've all seen as older women in our society. I would like to know how many, I really would like to know how many guys are out there that feel like they aren't respected for being men. Or if they don't have a voice. And probably the same thing could be said about women. So maybe we should just all get together and try to listen more. and validate more and, and just talk truth and have real discussions. Did you, when, when you were younger, did you guys, do you guys remember conversations like every dinner? The first thing my mom would say, well, what's the best thing that happened to you today? And we'd go around the table and everybody was supposed to say the best thing that happened to them on that day. And you know what? That was a really wise way to approach conversation at the table. and honestly get everybody talking about their lives and when we were apart and then when we came back together. No, we didn't. I did not have that type of conversation. And so anyway, I guess this conversation has been interesting very connected today. And I have a maxim that that fits. Let's see if I can. I tried to set up a segue for you, Kitty. Yeah. I tried to set up a segue for you. Well, you did a good job. This. Okay. I think this is a maxim that covers what everybody has said, sums it up. We are ignorant of many things which would not be hidden from us if the reading of old authors was familiar to us. That was Sir Everett Cook back in the fifteen and sixteen hundreds. And he's the Englishman from the House of Commons back then who's responsible for our freedom of speech. And so we were talking about the IT, I can't remember his name. Ralph. Yeah. Ralph, he was talking about that. And when you think about it, about the durability of the old clothing, that is a physical remnant of what the common law is and what you've been discussing. Because when you talk about the King James version of the Bible, that encodes our language for our freedom. It is built on the Saxon sign text that William Tyndale identified. It's a subject, verb, and direct object. I'll give you an example. Sally caught the ball. Sally's the subject, caught is the verb, the ball is the direct object. That is the language of contracts, the English language is. And that is the reason, see, when I was coming up and we were going through that transition after the King James Bible was removed from the schools after a hundred and eighty years. It was read as text. I remember hearing the scripture read from the Old Testament and the Lord's Prayer afterwards before the Pledge of Allegiance or anything else for the routine of that day. And there was no. Then we moved to an era where there were Sunday morning Christians. OK, that was when the Bible was taken out of the school. And so five days a week, you didn't hear it. Or six, in my case. You only heard it on Sunday morning. So that was the era my children grew up in. So I could be, there's older and oldest. And I guess I would be the oldest here. So we're probably fifty years, you know, in decades. But to the, going back to the common law that is based in scripture. It was brought here on our shores. And, um, I don't want to get too far back because what I want to do is, is help people understand what has happened in the past. Fifty to seventy years in our country and I love hearing about the King James Version being read because this is a quote out of, let's see, the Peter Vlaming case that came up in Virginia in twenty twenty three. The whole case was pled on the Virginia Bill of Rights, which is our common law. And he won five counts. He was a teacher. teaching French. They demanded that he use preferred pronouns. He refused to do it based on his religious convictions. So anyway, he charged the school system that eventually fired him with two counts of religious violations. one of freedom of speech, one of due process, and one of breach of contract. Tabak got to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. It had been reduced to just a breach of contract. But those judges said, oh, no, we want to go back and get all of the violations that you started out with. And they allowed that to be brought in as evidence. And he was awarded one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars per offense. And everyone knows that infamous Loudoun County school system. They voluntarily rescinded their DEI policy of preferred pronouns because they saw if a teacher or anyone took that, parents or anybody, took that, got it up to the Supreme Court, it would cost. That case was worth five hundred seventy five thousand dollars. So and I've kind of got a little bit off topic because that's what we do here. We get off topic all the time. Well, I'm trying to stick to what is common law without going too far back in history where it came from. I'll say, I will say this, it has its roots in the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was the first time ever that in human history, I guess other than the ancient Israel, when God appeared as a cloud by day and a pillow fire by night with the people where men were not free. And so anyway, let's see, I got it right here. Yeah. This is Black's Law Dictionary. I use the first edition because So you've got to use the terms and the definitions of the people of the day, because if you don't, it's just like Mr. I.T. Ralph said, you lose the context of it. You lose the total meaning of it. And so that's what, when you lose the meaning of the common law that our constitutions are based on with fundamental principles, you lose your rights or you don't lose them. Your rights get usurped. And so I guess that's kind of what my theme is today. All right. Common law. as distinguished from equity law is a body of rules and principles written or unwritten which are a fixed and immutable, that means unchangeable authority. You cannot change common law. It is what it is, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case. You hear a case law, case law is beautiful, So common law is rigid. It is written in stone like those Ten Commandments. And Moses stands center front on the east pediment of the Supreme Court with the tables of the Ten Commandments at either hand. That makes a visible, physical statement of the law of the land. and the basis of it. And it cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case or colored by any judicial discretion at which risk confessedly upon custom or statute as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Now, let me read that last part again. It cannot be be modified to suit peculiarities of a specific case. You cannot take common law and bend it to, you know, you were talking about women are emotional and, you know, relational versus men that are more logical in their approach to things, okay? Well, it's a little better than we do. You know, it's like that the realities of biology is that it's if you look at it in computer terms, you know, women have got windows open, all these windows open and we're making connections all the time where men tend to be a little bit more sequential. And they compartmentalize, which is a beautiful thing. Like, let's just say that we go to war and you have guys on the battlefield. The guys will say, hit the target. Where women are like, hit the target. But, oh, my gosh, my friend is going to be here and that friend is going to be there. There's a little less ability to compartmentalize. That's just biology. You're right. It is. Now, can you imagine? Would you put that female hormone out of proportion into a male body? Men are already protectors. They are defense, you know, preservation. They protect the family. Did you put the emotional female hormone in that body? I know one in particular case, the boy shot his best friend. And his father is a teacher that is a proponent of the sex change and all that. So you mix those things, you get a Molotov cocktail. And there is no rational thinking whatsoever. And the term political science was developed by our constitutional framers. And they made it a science because they framed it in common law and it is rigid. Even Justice Scalia said that. And the Supreme Court rulings now are going back to that common law. So let me read this last thing. Okay. It says it cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case. Now here's the, here is the counter to that or colored by any judicial discussion. It common law is not up for discussion. Thou shalt not kill period. You know, that's pretty solid in which, but even the Bible gives circumstances that are the exceptions to that. But when God's law is being violated by worshiping other gods and then all the atrocities and in particular child sacrifice that comes with it. So, I mean, yes, ordinary people with a good conscience, a moral conscience, based on religious convictions about sanctity of life, you're going to automatically, you have an internal control. That's the difference. God writes his laws on your inner parts. The Greeks were a law unto themselves. They already had God's law in them, some, the ones that Paul came across. And so they automatically, that would be your, okay, John Adams described religious and moral men. That would be your moral man with an internal moral conscience. And so anyway, it says, not which rest confessedly upon custom or statute. See, statutes are fiction. They are as true as they are false. At Marbury versus Madison gave us the plumb line to measure that by, which is the Constitution. Any law repugnant to the Constitution is void. If it's consistent with the Constitution, it stands. And that is what has gotten blurred with case law and anything, because anything in that case law that is repugnant to the Constitution, that whole case law is that is void right there. So as from any claim to ethical superiority, when you look at the definition of CRT, it says it stresses the emotional. right and it quest challenges the um theory of equal of of equality okay what's the theory of equality we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unable rights okay they question them and when you question something in law you're bringing up a controversy So when you do that, they are bringing up the controversy. We question that. That definition of CRT totally unravels constitutional law, the question of constitutional law and everything that our law is based on. And K is the derivative of what came down as soon as the Bible was taken out of the schools, November, nineteen sixty three, November seventeenth. And actually, this is a radical twist. The Abingdon School District of Pennsylvania actually took the case to the court to support their ten verses compulsory reading in the classrooms every day. And they lost. Because someone did not have the adequate, whoever the defense was, or the prosecutor in that case, I guess, well, if they took it to, yeah, if they took it to the Supreme Court, their prosecutor, prosecuting attorney did not have the background to stand on the fact that this is the basis for our foundation. They didn't have John Adams quotes that our Republican former government makes no sense to anyone but religious and moral men. So this Bible has been read for over a hundred and eighty years in the classroom. It is an underpinning moral foundation for our country and the language. Also, the translators of the King James Bible required the translators two qualities. They had to be learned men, not novices. They had to be familiar with all the other translations, including all the other English translations and the Latin by Jerome, which was translated, I think, by Venerable Bede into the English. And then Tyndale and all of those, they looked at all of those translations to see how certain Greek words or Hebrew words or Aramaic were translated. And they had committees divided up for Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha. And those three committees had to look at all those different translations, and they had to decide among themselves. If they couldn't, they sent it to the universities, Cambridge, Oxford, and the other one was Corpus Christi. And so to determine the very best translation. But the second qualification, other than education and biblical background, was that they had to be led by the holy spirit i'm not saying subsequent translations translations aren't but some are and they say well it's not necessary for the translators to be filled with the holy spirit because the original scriptures were dictated by god to the scribes But here's the situation that that original committee of forty seven translated into the King James Version of the Bible also gave. They did not honor the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a translation from Greek scriptures, but it is an Egyptian translation. This is what they gave to the Egyptian translators. They said they are excellent scribes. Scholars, as far as the scholarship qualification, they qualify. But the Holy Spirit, and that's when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit comes and he leads and guides and teaches you the all truth. They did not have that. Why? Because they were worshiping other gods, lesser gods. So when it came down, to the translation maybe of just one word. If you're subject to a lesser God, in the translation from the Creator of all things, the Most High God, is put up against that. But you've got to obey the lesser God. What are you going to choose? So see, that is the principle in that. And so those were two requirements, being led by the Holy Spirit and being knowledgeable, not a novice. You had to know those scriptures. Now, that convinced me that that translation, it's not, they say, it's not imperfect, but it's the best that we could do. Later translations have said, translators have said, and I think maybe for New American Standard or one of those, English Standard Version. You know, they're not too far off, too far different. But they said it wasn't necessary to be filled with the Holy Spirit in order to translate. And then some of these have had like thousands of translators give input. But then again, when you go back, and I'm going to read the preface To Black's Law Dictionary. Okay. I told you there were I think four, three or four witnesses of strength in what is written when you go and you speak at public meetings. And I'm glad people are doing this because speaking truth that you know is solid, immutable, unchangeable. You can speak it out And they'll sit there mute. And you won't hear it coming back. But you will begin to see some changes that take place. And I, in the past year, after doing this three, over three years, going to meetings, I started out by myself and didn't know anybody, somebody, however you speak, at a meeting. And then they invited me into a group. Then we had a group that would go, and then we dwindled down. Now it's down to being one other person. But we have seen changes that we had directly asked for at meetings, you know, where they sat there. Would anything happen? No, well, nothing happened. But something has happened. Our school board. See, we want things to happen on our time. God has his own time. And when he does, he gets everything lined up. I mean, just perfect. We had the one remaining conservative. who was going to resign, not resign, he just wasn't gonna run again. He was fed up, he was done. Cause he had gotten excoriated in their private meetings. And I mean, he kicked under the bus, you David. The good thing was we had gotten the superintendent that we wanted. And he's a naturalized citizen. I'm gonna tell you, when a naturalized citizen, In fact, Peter Vlaming, that took that case to the Virginia Supreme Court and his attorneys did it on the basis of the Bill of Rights. And they said that they needed that the Supreme Court would agree that the Virginia Bill of Rights, particularly on the section fourteenth, sixteenth, excuse me, dealing with religious freedom was far superior than the first amendment of the Constitution. And so we're referencing that and we're reading that. So, anyway, he had been in our, our superintendent. It was just perfect. I don't want to go into too much detail because, you know, we don't always have one accord of listeners. Yeah. But I will say this, between him and the one conservative, they were able to raise the standard in that school. And the first thing he said when he went in there, he said, I want everything political out of these classrooms. I don't care if it's Trump. I don't care who it is out now. And then so anyway, what happened was there was a school board candidate that had moved from a larger city down the road that was notoriously liberal. I mean, you know, blue, whatever. And he Let's see, what was it? I'll try to think. Yeah. He came in there and so someone had vacated a seat. Do you see God's timing? A school board member vacated the seat and they said, oh man, we got a liberal up here. He's from the big city. He knows exactly what we need. They put him in there. He moved from that area because he's a conservative to a rural area. Yeah. Yeah. So he got to be friends with the one remaining conservative. They started talking apparently common sense behind the scenes. And now enough of the school, current school board, where there were people that thought they were liberal but found out they weren't so liberal, are now, they've swung that board for the inside. You didn't have to wait for an election. Yeah, you got it. That's all we can say. It's really amazing when stuff like this happens, when nobody can take credit for it, and you know it was God Almighty that really changed the entire situation. I was thinking about this yesterday that... It's really easy once you start to get a grasp on the problems and you're willing to step up and say something about it. The first thing that you do is you get really angry. Then you tell them this must not be so. And then you figure out that you have the power to do that as a sovereign man or woman. And you start educating them on that. And then you realize they don't know this. If you do come with the peace and love of Jesus Christ, then you have to tone it down just a little because you have to be able to see that they do not know. They have to have the opportunity to be instructed. And then they have the opportunity to seek a remedy. And wouldn't that be so much more wonderful for them, just as it is for Christ to take care of our sins by offering us forgiveness by his shed blood? If we could see them say, oh, I really messed this up. I'll do what the people are telling me to do. Let me find this remedy. Let me investigate this and let me fix it and let me provide restitution for the people. And if they were to do that, we wouldn't need to kick them out of their offices. We wouldn't need to own everything that they've worked their whole lives for. Instead, we would have them doing what they're supposed to do in protecting the rights of the people, we don't have to educate the next guy who gets elected if we can keep the one in the office and just continue teaching him and continue instructing him and continue getting remedy. But if he's a minority, he's going to have to work really hard to help assist in educating the rest of them. But does it matter then in this discussion whether he's a liberal or conservative, whether he goes by the label of a Democrat or a Republican? It does not matter. If he is receiving instruction from the people and their instruction is lawful and good, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be receptive to that, regardless of what party put him on a ballot. And this is also important discussion to have in knowing that whether there was the difference between somebody who just kind of fumbling around trying to do the right thing and somebody who has his intention to harm for self gain, because you have to treat both of those situations based on the threat level of the community or the people around you or the country. And so like, and when, when you were at the last Byron Township meeting and you heard the video that Calvin played of the clerk, the audio that he played, not the video, the audio of her laughing, she has laughed when we brought these things up to her. She's laughed. We've got a couple of different recordings of it and it's total contempt. for we the people. When you see that, that's when you have to realize that these people are psychopaths and they don't care. They do not care about we the people. They do not care about anything except for their own self gain and using their positions, which harm others. But there's in all things that we do, discernment has to come first in which way we jump to respond, not react, but to respond. And those evaluation steps have to be made before we take action. Yes. And I would also like to add a couple of refinements to both of you speaking truth. There's such a thing as criminal activity. There's such a thing as conscientiousness. And let me see if I can get my definition because I don't like to... See, you're doing what girls do. We're refining things, right? We had that discussion in the first hour. So, Y'all are laughing. But see, here's the thing. I told you, this is like the color commentator at the football arena, right? During a football game. You got the one that's actually calling the plays and you got the color commentator that kind of, you know, is like, well, look at this. That's right. Yeah, whatever, you know. All right. Now, the people are sovereign, but we have entered into contracts. They're called constitutions. There are fifty-one of them in the land. And we have agreed to submit to what we've written in those constitutions, but that doesn't constitute everything. That's our public commitment. That is our commitment to government. Not what government writes, not the statutes they write, the terms of our contract that are written in common law. The original constitutions for the most part were common law. They have been corrupted over the years. So what I say is this, you're right. I liked your, Karen, I really liked your digression there or your analysis of your reactions and how you respond, how you speak. But also it's very important to take them the law and quote directly out of your constitution because they can't refute that. And scripture, they really can't refute that. There are a couple of, one of them, has spoken scripture, she said, God's law does not return, word does not return void. I said, I know. Some of the things that she spoke to the former school board that had the kind of people on it that she, that Donna, the majority that Donna's talking about, she spoke very harsh scriptures to them. And I would go like, oh no, just speak the Constitution. But, you know, that was my part. So, but it came to pass that, Those people actually left the county. So anyway, this is the freedom of speech. We have a candidate running now, an attorney general, Jay Jones. I think he's made national news that he described very graphically how he wanted to speak. OK, he was a delegate. We have delegates, not representatives in the Virginia Assembly. He was a delegate. in there the speaker of the house is the one he was speaking to he said i want um he said if i had two bullets and three people to choose from hitler um pol pot or uh todd yeah todd gilbert i would choose todd gilbert to get two bullets to the head and did the same to his children while his wife looked on Okay. That's not hearsay for me. That is all over the Internet. And he has an interview where you profusely apologize. That's the attorney general. That's the prosecutor that people will come up against if the state has charges or anybody takes it to him. So now here is licentiousness. This is the line. We have unalienable rights. They are unlimited because they're endowed by an infinite creator. But they come with a moral conscience. This is what licentiousness is. The indulgence of the arbitrary will of the individual without regard to ethics or law or respect for the rights of others. In this, it differs from liberty. Now remember, liberty and licentiousness are two different things. This is what I love about the English language. This is why it's essential. For those who want to reap the benefits of our rights under the Constitution of whatever country you come from, you need to learn English if you want to understand our law. For the latter term may properly be used only, this is liberty, in the exercise of the will in its moral freedom. Whoever thought that freedom had a qualifier? Moral freedom with justice to all men and obedience to the laws, our laws of the Constitution. All men are subject to our constitutions in this country. In a narrower sense or technical sense, the word is equivalent to lewdness or lasciviousness. Now, where do those words come from? KJV. So that, see, that's why you cannot abandon that old language because they won't, the old language has the terms and there's a direct link there. There's a law. There is common law in this, and there is scripture all in it. So when you go to those meetings, if you take common law, you go back to the dictionary. I like the first. If I can't find the word in the first edition, I try not to go beyond the fourth. And I'm gonna read the preface of the fifth. Do what? Are you speaking of Blacks when you say first versus fourth? The first Blacks Law Dictionary. First edition. It's called Blacks Law Dictionary First Edition. That was originally printed in You're fine. You said First Dictionary, and I was thinking of Noah Webster when you said that, and then I caught up. I'm sorry. The American Dictionary of the American English Language by Noah Webster, that is a perfect one. Neil Gorsuch actually quotes out of it. So that is one right there. That's earlier than Black's Law Dictionary. But when you are defining the law, see, you go to that. And if it's not in there, in the first Black's Law Dictionary, when I'm trying to write things, define things from legal perspective, then I go to the Noah Webster's Dictionary, You're getting it. That's one of the old authors. Okay. Now, so you talked about the people are sovereign and they are. And so this is what I want to do. This is a quote from James Madison. It was actually used in that Peter Vlaming case that I was telling you about. Literally, that case was pled on common law. And they even took the Supreme Court cases that had said, you know, basically, you can have your religious beliefs, but you can't talk about them. That was called Smith case, and I can't remember the full name of it. But they even... said that that's not so, that you do have a right to express your religious convictions. So anyway, this is what James Madison said. If the meaning of, okay, now this was actually quoted inside the Vlaming case. This is a court of law the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, that actually had this written in the case and supported it. And this is James Madison, because you want to go back to the thoughts and intents of the founders. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attribution of the government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis, you know, for people, that's an antiquated word, baby. When a caterpillar comes out of the cocoon, it becomes a butterfly. You wouldn't even recognize the butterfly or the caterpillar. Okay. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology existed. were to be taken in the modern sense. Now let me read the preface, the Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition. Now remember, common law is based on God's laws. It's immutable, it's unchangeable. In the period since the fourth edition of Black's Law Dictionary, now this one was published in And we've had every year now we get a new edition, okay? Most of all areas of the law have undergone substantial change and development. Well, our language has been changing, hasn't it? The vocabulary of the law has shown corresponding change and growth, particularly in the area of commercial and constitutional law. All right. If constitutions are written in fundamental principles, maxims of law, in biblical scriptures that James Madison said really are immutable, how is it? We got substantial changes in constitutional law. We actually have a constitution in Virginia that was de facto and not actual law. And I'll go into that if we have time, or maybe we don't have time. The Constitution for Michigan was installed unlawfully. We only had like, you know, we didn't have the votes. And so it really should be struck from the record and we should go back. That's right. And you can look at that in the case of Virginia. It's nineteen oh two. See, they talked about commercial. Well, that's your corporations. That's when the when the corporations came into the thing and they have what they call corporate court. So, OK, so a new statutory rights and remedies. In addition, many common law doctrines. You can't change common law doctrine. It's in stone and concepts have been replaced or modified. What presumption was that? With new statutory rights and liberties. These major developments have occasioned the need not only to greatly expand the legal words and terms included in Black's Law Dictionary, but also to re-examine all existing entries for currentness of legal usage. This thorough review has resulted in the inclusion of over ten thousand new or revised entries they're not talking about just words they're talking about how they've modified the definition as well while this new edition reflects the very latest changes and developments in law and practice old english european and feudal law not I'm going to address that one. Fetal law words and terms have been retained. Under the fetal system, we were slaves. And that each continued to form the foundation for much of our jurisprudence. Okay. New York et al. versus, let's see, New York et al. versus Bruin. That was a case where a man wanted to go out on his front porch with his concealed weapon because there had been five felonies committed in his neighborhood. And New York at that time had three different certificates for being able to use a gun. One was basically target practice. One was hunting. And the third was self-defense. And they denied it. He took it to the Supreme Court. And in that case, Clarence Thomas came out with three criteria for evaluating what the plain text of the Constitution. One was the plain text, history and tradition. OK. And he said, you can't go back too far in history. You can't go too far forward. There's a window. Remember, common law is unchangeable. It's immutable. It's fixed. This is what lawyers don't like. That's why when you get into a court that is run by a prosecutor and a magistrate, which actually is an administrative officer, And there may or may not be a jury in there. Or even in the state Supreme Court, the jury's been modified to a jury of five or no less than five in some cases. It varies from state to state, but it's never twelve unless you have a special grand jury. Now, OK, all that is shifting. All those terms is shifting. So you have that administrative court. That's what Neil Gorsuch says. Our judges, our administrative officers dress up like judges and it's not even a real court. And so, yeah, going back to the changes of definitions. So that's how they shifted terms and definitions. There was a case in Virginia. The nineteen oh two Constitution was only approved by resolution in the legislature. A resolution is not a law. And there was a man incarcerated on a felony that took that to court in nineteen oh three. He at that time had enough knowledge about common law. Now, let's see what that that one was. The Bill of Rights, the original Bill of Rights, he was referring back to the Constitution of eighteen sixty nine and it retained all the elements of all the sections of the Constitution that described what common law was, which is trial by jury. And I'm going to read exactly what it says. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, now that would cover his case, a man had the right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation. to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses to call for evidence in his favor and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinity. They have to be impartial men of his vicinity, meaning living in his locality where he lives. So they would know of him. They couldn't have any bias. Okay. Unanimous consent. he cannot be found, without that, he cannot be found guilty. Nor can he be impelled to give evidence against himself that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land. That is the constitution or the judgment of his peers. And let's see. And that was what he was denied. He said he was denied that. And this, the response was, To that case, let me see if I got it here handy. I can summarize it. Oh, yeah. The Constitution of nineteen oh two was ordained and proclaimed by a convention. This is quoting out of the case called Taylor versus Commonwealth. It was Taylor that was incarcerated. ordained and proclaimed a convention duly called by direct vote of the people of the state to revise and amend the Constitution of eighteen sixty nine. The result of the work of that convention has been recognized, accepted and acted upon as the only valid constitution of the state by the governor in swearing fidelity to it and proclaiming it and directed thereby by the legislature in its formal official act adopting a joint resolution. A resolution is not law. July fifteen, nineteen oh two, recognizing the Constitution ordained by the convention, which assembled in the city of Richmond on the twelfth day of June nineteen oh one as the Constitution of Virginia. by the individual oaths of its members to support it and by having been engaged for nearly a year in legislating under it and putting its provisions into operation by the judiciary and taking the oath prescribed thereby to support it and by enforcing its provisions and by the people in their primary capacity by peacefully accepting it. and are acquiescing. People didn't vote on this. And not only that, I got, this is something else you might want to research for your own state. I went back to the convention of that constitution. There was a senator in there. He said, when you are modified, settled all, you had better be careful. And he also said, this is very irregular. A constitution of Virginia has never been modified without putting first a single amendment on the ballot. You couldn't wholesale modify the thing. They put in a whole section and this is what they did. The Virginia Bill of Rights was a separate document you could hold in your hand. It was ratified June the twelfth, seventeen seventy six. The Bill of Rights. That was the type of document that George Mason wanted to have for the people of the United States. Not amendments tacked on to the end, but a document prefixed to the Constitution. And it was prefixed. Then on June the twenty ninth, seventeen days later, the Constitution, the first Constitution of Virginia was ratified. The Bill of Rights was separate. Under that nineteen oh two Constitution, they took that separate prefix, meaning it couldn't be separated from the Constitution, but it was stood alone. They put it as Article one in the Constitution. they put i can't remember his article seven or twelve or something like that corporation commission in there what they shifted and moved things around did um in fact gorsuch even said you cannot avoid a constitutional mandate by relabeling and moving things around now can you mr fletcher So they moved it into the body of the Constitution. It was separate, totally separate. And as if to say, oh, we have constitutional authority. What they did, okay, now our form of government is three separate and distinct branches, okay, with periodical elections. Those elections make us a free republic. That other structure makes us a republic. And in his hearing for confirmation, Neil Gorsuch was asked by then-Senator Sasser, well, we have the three branches of government, legislative, judicial, and executive. And then we got the people. The people are sovereign. I mean, when you see that video, Gorsuch is so reflexive on that. It is amazing. It's in his bones. It's the fire of liberty that Justice Alito refers to. The fire of liberty is in your bones. It's in that sovereignty of the people. Gorsuch never wavers on. David Jose's group? David got his group to get together. We all agreed, we assembled as a people. We agreed that we were going to send a notice to Neil Gorsuch instructing him to announce publicly that the people are sovereign. He did just that. He did more than that. He wrote a book. He wrote a book called Overruled and how the people had been overruled by these administrative courts. and they'd have had lives properly. Liberty destroyed. Yes. You read that, you'll get a good foundation. I've got a cabinet right in front of me. And so I've got all my books like lined up and I can usually grab from one side or the other. I remember going to the library yesterday. And guess what? He took it to his cronies to, let's see, it was the library, the Reagan Library, where he had the public announcements. You see a lot of video clips on him. And I think the other one was, I don't know, it was George Bush. I can't remember. There's another library where judges and lawyers and students of the law, the study of law, law school are all there. And he was letting them know that people are sovereign. Did you know that Amy Comey Barrett just published a book? I think it came out last month. Yes, I have a copy of it. I haven't read it yet, but I have a copy. Okay, good. You'll have to report back to us. Okay. Well, I remember her confirmation hearing, she said she followed the law wherever it goes, wherever it takes. Okay. Well, this preface of this Black's Law Fifth, see, lawyers now are being trained. You can go to your district, your federal district court website, And it's kind of obscure. Way down at the bottom, they give you their training. And two of their training courses are the Constitution and Experiment. Well, guess what? I think after, what, two hundred fifty years? When you have an experiment, you have an hypothesis that you're going to test. And it has to stand up to the same test, say, in a laboratory. It's an hypothesis that you test. It's not theory. It's an hypothesis. So you test it over and over. If you test it using the same standards, And that's why, okay, Linus Pauling, when he tested vitamin C, he won two Nobel prizes based on his experiments of vitamin C. He was the first single recipient Two-time Nobel Peace Prize winner. He didn't trust anybody. He was working at a university, and he knows how they can adulterate those tests. They'll say, oh, yeah, well, we used the same amount he did. But they won't tell you. They put a drug in there with it. Or they didn't use the same criteria for the control group. you know, in the thing. And he knew that because he was inside the system. So he did his own experiments and he was able to replicate the results every time. And that was why he got the Nobel Prize. Those scientists up there, they are the world's greatest and they know what standards are. It's, I don't know, to divulge from that too much. But talking about, see, when you have fundamental principles that our constitutions are framed in those, they're based on the Bible, they are immutable, they are unchangeable, and they cannot be modified by statutes. Statutes must measure up to that, not the reverse. Therefore, common law is not changeable. It is possible over time if that standard is upheld to prove a case based on common law and to determine guilt of innocence. It doesn't evidence conflict or measure up to common law. What is it? How do you determine the guilt of a person? So that is the, the thing about that. So when you go to your meetings, it's very important for you to know your rights and pick two or three that you consider to be key. One issue to me is freedom of speech. And I was at a meeting one night and the county attorney whom I highly respect, because he stopped a town hall meeting. I was speaking into a cold mic. He said, you need to stop reading. And you need, oh, no, you need to start over. You need to speak of this and start over. We need to hear this. I was quoting out of the first Samuel chapters eight and nine that David Hosea pointed out one time about how God allowed people to choose their form of government. They chose the king in that particular thing. And so anyway, I'm standing there in that meeting and I'm holding up the two constitutions. And I said, these are your common law contracts for the people. And we have people coming in here from agencies and corporations, every meeting that you go in contracts with that you serve our rights. And the lawyer said, you're off topic. I said, well, I have the right of unrestrained freedom of speech. And he yells out, no, you don't. Oh, wow. And I said, show me. I said, show me the Constitution. Well, I have mercy on that man because he stopped for me to give scripture to the people that gave them confidence to speak on the authority of God because he'd given the authority to instruct government. So, see, there's a mitigating thing there. I also have to look at the timing. That was a year ago. This is now. And he is under a lot of pressure. These attorneys... are going to lose a lot of money. Once David has noticed to the clerks that they are obstructing justice and they are liable basically for treason, for blocking these affidavits that are sent directly to the court, to the judges, notice agents, notice the principal, notice the principal, notice the agent. When that clerk receives that, the principal are their bosses, the judges. That notice is supposed to go right to them. Your affidavit, science award affidavit, is a court of record. You are the sovereign. You're the king. The king used to call court. The sovereigns, the people, call court. That's why you can't come out of sui juris in one of the people. You come off of that, you step down there and you're one of the people. That's what we did to the king in the Declaration of Independence. So you got to say sui juris. Okay. You stay in that. And they have to give it to them. We instructed Neil Gorsuch to declare the people sovereign. And that's a record. And he obeyed. He got wind of it. Somehow he got that notice. Do you want to bring this up here? I think this is the video of August eight, twenty twenty four. Is that correct? Oh, yeah. I can play some of it. I'll have to interrupt once in a while so I don't get a YouTube strike. I just love him. I'll tell you what. Good evening. Good evening and welcome to the Reagan Library. My name is David Trulio, and it is my privilege to serve as the President and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. We start all of our official programming with the Pledge of Allegiance, so I ask that you please stand and join me in honoring the flag and all those who serve under it. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Okay, I'm going to go through here so we get Judge Gorsuch up there a minute. And when I had the chant, if you eat butter daily, this is what happens. The reason butter is called. That is what happens is that you get happier because butter is delicious. Well, welcome back. What an honor to have you here, sir. Thank you. It's great to have you here and you here. We've got your book. It's just come out, and it's fantastic. And what's so great about it to me is there are these individual stories about real people and how they've been affected. And I thought maybe we could talk about some of those individual stories and then maybe some of the broader conclusions that could be drawn from it. So just to start off and set the stage for this conversation, a central argument of your book is how the sheer volume and complexity of our laws swallows up ordinary people. He's talking about the book of the rule, not the republic, if you can keep it. Based on the existence of laws, to write a book suggesting we need fewer laws. First, Fred, I say thank you. Thank you for having me out here. Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to do this. And I want to thank all the people at the Reagan Library who've been so kind to me. the docents to the guards to the director david really appreciate the hospitality the chance to walk through the library every time i come here right and it's just a magnificent place especially i gotta take a break or i'll get a youtube ding out of it here so we're gonna move this along just a little bit and see what he has to say sorry guys it's the way that's the way the world works and You know, when law is about common morality, things we can agree on, things we know intuitively, things your grandmother taught you, OK, fair enough. And if you pretend you didn't know, ignorance is no excuse. But what happens when you had no idea and you could have had no idea? And, you know, these things built up over time and they niggle at you. Those cases, those are the cases that you go home with and you think about those people. And I decided it was time for me to really sit down and study the problem and think about it carefully. And I picked one of my famous former law clerks who's fantastic to help me with this. She's marvelous. Her parents escaped communism, Czechoslovakia in nineteen sixty eight came to this country. And I don't know a young woman who loves this country more or its liberties more than it's. The law in this country has exploded in just my lifetime. In my lifetime. So, put some meat on the bones. There are now, well, the entire U.S. Code, all the laws passed by Congress could fit in one book at the beginning of this country, even a hundred years ago. The slim book at that. Today, it occupies an entire wall in my office. You don't think Congress is busy? Where's the congressman? You're busy. You're busy adding two to three million new words to the law every single year. Bravo. Do you remember what I read out of that preface? There were ten thousand new entries in the dictionary. The Black's Law IV and the V, and they're like XII, XIII, XIV. They put out a new edition every year now, not just four or five decades. And that's reflective of exactly what he said. That Black's Law dictionary, IV and V, has a difference in thickness like that. It is, and I expect they get thicker and thicker and thicker. And he's talking about a visual... Everybody needs to remember is that as they keep adding these proposals and amendments and all of this stuff to our state and all of the statutory case law, they're literally creating their pretended legislation through the judicial branch. And this is a problem. That's why everybody needs to be talking about nullification. Don't add more crap to the crap heap. We've got to get rid of the crap and clean the house out. I really believe that we need to have about a ninety percent nullification And what's there? It's not, it's not what do we get rid of? It's what do we keep? And that makes the question a lot, the project a lot more doable. I'm going to bring him back up just for a few minutes. But I wish you could play this thing through for everybody. I just can't because it's off of YouTube. That's how busy they are. And of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg, right? So much of our law is now made by agencies. How busy are they? We have something called the Federal Register where they're supposed to publish their rules. Now, not all of them get in there, all right? But that was the theory, nice theory you have there. And a hundred years ago, in the nineteen thirties even, the average length of the Federal Register was like twenty pages a year. It's sixty to seventy thousand pages. And then we started looking further. That gets your attention. How about crimes? A lot of these cases were people being criminally pursued by the government. How many federal crimes do you think there are? Well, the answer is nobody knows. because congress just dumps in new we have title eighteen that's supposed to be about crimes but they just add them in everywhere as they go and and somebody the department of justice in nineteen eighty two during the reagan years said i'm going to count them up and devoted like two years i'm i don't quote me on that something like two years and gave up she had at that point three thousand in number well the federal code has doubled in length since nineteen eighty two. And so have probably the federal crimes, their conservative estimate over five thousand federal crimes. What about those regulations? Again, nobody knows. That's a real sad commentary on how the government that we have based on self-interest rather than on service. has gotten so out of whack. Well, I'm going to post this. I'm going to post that on my Telegram in my ex account right there. I'll post the link to that video. So I encourage everybody to go back and listen to it. And then I think it's not a bad idea for everybody to buy Judge Gorsuch's books. I've got his other one too, The Overruled. I've got both of them. And I think it's a good idea for us to really take a good hard look on this. so that when we do have an opportunity to stand up in our local communities, that we do understand what we're dealing with here. I have had the privilege of meeting a couple of people just this week who are really good at digging up the information behind the veil that they've created here to hide what they're doing. And I think that this is another skill set that we all have to have. And it's It's once going back to basics, finding out what's real, being able to craft a good defense, to defend, to know what we're talking about, and then go in there and both instruct and hold them ultimately accountable. Even if they don't want to be held accountable, we have to do that, not just for ourselves, but for our communities and for our posterity. I think, is there anywhere you want to go with this right now? Because I'm thinking that I'd like to have you back on again and that we can talk more about this because I think this is a subject, the whole group that you guys are in with We the People notices and such is extraordinary. Usually Greg's on today. And like I said before, I would love to have everybody have a chance to talk about what it is that they've learned because we're all going to frame things just a little bit differently, right? And having you on here, it's fantastic. It's another look from another angle of what Greg's been talking about. None of us are in a rub with each other. It's that we're all kind of learning from each other and expanding our knowledge. And I think that's beautiful. And by the way, Greg was unavailable today, but he recommended Kitty. Well, throwing a few, I guess. Okay. Yeah. The reason that we all agree is we have different gifts that God's given us. And that's what the, that's what our unenviable rights are for is to develop that, the freedom to develop them in that context. That's unlimited as long as it doesn't harm people of property. And so, we all talk about fundamental and speak from the perspective of fundamental principles everything is nothing's going to conflict it's all going to be an angle looking at something else but using the same perspective the same moral compass and see that's what's so different that whole purpose of taking that bible out of school was to bring atheism in man is it All that. And then so what man's laws. Then you got a whole volume on like Neil Gorsuch said, take up a whole shelf on a bookcase. And they keep running on with them. How many how many omnibus bills do we get? A stack of fifteen hundred. And, you know, they haven't even read them. And they just said, oh, pass this bill and we'll pay you. There is no way that they're reading. And we've got over two thousand bills a year just in Michigan alone that go past the Michigan legislature. I want you to think about it. Two thousand bills a year. We're not talking about bills either that stick to the subject of the title. that they have to sit through and read, which they should have. Every single one of them needs to be able to sit through before they can vote on it because they're basically letting their donors dictate how they vote. They're having their assistants say, well, you know, this donor that gave you that amount of money wants you to vote this way. And that's what's happening here. It's an economic rubber stamping of the subversion of we the people by the corporatocracy with their useful idiots that are in the political seats. It's a money game. It's revenue raising. It is buying the seats in. It's taking over the United States through economic means. There is a standing rule that has been since... Now remember, the founders themselves held office, all of these legislative, executive offices from the very beginning. And they set up a rule in Congress that the bill had to have three readings in the committee, Once it came out on the floor, three readings. Once it went back for revisions, three readings. Once it came back out, three readings. Every time it hit that floor, it had to have three readings. And it's never left the books. It's still on the books of Richmond, even for the states. What do they do? We suspend the three readings. And then seventy two hours or maybe less. Boom, you get a stack. And I sat there and watched a stack of bills, fifteen hundred pages deep. And they suspended it. Now, if they're going to get fifteen hundred pages, call it one bill. They need to sit there till it's read three times. Yeah, it's overwhelming everybody with blows. I'm serious, you can sit there forever. This is like watching a little kid that wears their parents down about wanting a cookie, right? It's like, mom, can I have a cookie? Mom, can I have a cookie? Mom, can I have a cookie? Mom, can I? And after a while, everybody's tuning them out because it's like, just shut up and go away. You know, that's I'm not saying that to your kids, but I'm saying that to the people that are pelting everyone in office with these ridiculous bills. And there's so much pork in them that I think not only are these people placed and making a lot of decisions based on money, but it's just too, it's like who, because the structure is so broken and unless we're willing to, to fix the structure through nullification, we're going to continue to have this, this bloat that just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Did you, did you ever watch the movie? Let's see, which one is it? Cloudy with a chance of meatballs. It's a kid's movie. All right. And there's this mayor that shows up. And he's like a normal-sized mayor. But by the time he's done, because he just keeps getting bigger and wants to be a really big mayor. And it's like, that's like our government. I mean, watch the movie. It'll make you laugh. And then sit down with the mayor. What's that? Donna doesn't watch much TV or movies. But when she does... It's going to be a kid's movie, right? Because I'm not going to watch all the crap out there that's on... online or i watch like engineering movies or something engineering tv or something like that but I don't watch the propaganda crap out there, but this is actually a pretty funny movie. It's a cartoon movie. Or you could look at Templeton from Charlotte's Web. He goes into the carnival or whatever it is, the fair, and he comes out this really, really big bloated rat that's just spent the entire night eating. That's our entire government right now. It's like Templeton, the rat at the fair. Yeah. You know, you're not going to you're not going to stuff more food in the rat and make this thing better. It's got to be taken away and it's got to be leaned out. You know, and actually, that's what you do with a corporation that's out of control. You've got to lean things out. You've got to get rid of all of the nonsense to make it work. You know, a lean, mean fighting machine that can actually that can actually function. You can't do it. By layering on. So I'm liking what he's saying here. And he makes some really good points, Judge Gorsuch does, in saying how absolutely ridiculously bloated this thing is. I don't care what issue. All the candidates suck right now. And all they're talking about is their little issue that they want to get passed through, hoping that people will say, oh, yes, I want that, too. But what the problem is, is they're not fixing the problem. They're just making it more complex. And unless we get this thing turned around, it's going to fall and fail under its own weight. I think we're past the point now. I really do. It's going to fail. And it's going to fail under its own weight because we weren't doing our jobs of making sure that we constrained this usurpation that they've gotten addicted to. Well, one thing that Neil Gorsuch pointed out in that SEC versus jargonsy case, and that has a very interesting story all in itself. But one thing he pointed out was that, okay, what those lawyers found out, that was the new Civil Liberties Alliance that were using the Constitution. Excuse me. They won a Cochran case. Okay. Jocksey lost his case based on the admin court back in twenty fourteen. In that case that sat there, they fined him and everything else. Fast forward to twenty, twenty four, ten years later, there's a Cochran that she's employed in the accounting firm for the SEC. she finds an irregularity, points it out, and that doesn't go down well. So the SEC sues her, not their firm, but her, to the two to twenty thousand dollars. Now, she hires the New Civil Liberties Alliance to defend her case. In their case, in their course of discovery, they find out that the prosecutor and the administrative official dressed up like a judge have colluded with emails, exchanging emails back and forth. Okay, now what happened with that? The magistrate, there's a maxim that says the magistrate and the prosecutor are to be separate and independent. And so they can't collude if they're independent. Now, what does that prosecutor present as evidence? Sit down and get a grip on this one. There was one trillion megabytes of quote unquote evidence against Jarcusy. His lawyers said it would take two lawyers, four decades to sift through all of that. Okay. Now, and some of it was more than likely AI generated. Now, let me just diverge a little bit on that. There was a doctor in a Texas hospital that contested sex change operations because he said it was against the policy, even the policy of the hospital. He got sued by Jack Smith, I think it was, or one of his people. And they had an AI-generated document that was not even a true statute. And he said, he came out on X and posted his documents. He said, I only posted these out here because I couldn't get any satisfaction from the judicial system. That's what they do. So if they were, so the SEC was able to generate one trillion megabytes of data against jargonsy. Do you think that's lawyers sitting there pencil and paper, or even with a computer doing it themselves? No. So guess what? They threw the Cochrane case out and the SEC voluntarily dismissed forty-two cases because they did not want to go through the same case of discovery. Well, see, Jarcusy had been accused falsely, so his case came back up and the Supreme Court heard it. Idil Gorsuch said he was not even allowed to submit evidence for himself on his own behalf. if you remember when i read out of that constitution and that was standard across the country for all the original constitutions you are the defendant the accused is permitted to bring evidence to support his case he can't and literally you cannot submit anything against yourself it's on the burden of the plaintiff to prove your guilt in that quarter law. And that is biblical. It's based on the way that the judgments of the people were brought out. You had to have two or three witnesses of the same incident and thing. It's so biblical the way it was set up. And it's so, okay, it is reverted under Roman law, back under that feudal system where we were slaves. You know what the word feudal means? Fee. Charge. Money. Justice, back then under common law, it was impartial. It was blind. From the least to the greatest. That's biblical terms. We're seeing the same. We have the same rights as well. And they could not submit evidence against themselves. Out of the mouths of two to three witnesses, two or three witnesses, may every word be established. Your word is your evidence you bring to court. And that is how corrupt is God. Yeah. Well, and I got to tell you, there's more and more stuff that's coming out against the injustice system because there isn't any justice in our in our court system. I'm firsthand witness of that happening here with the case in Byron Township. And you know what, they're just giving me more people to probably sue because of what they're doing because you can't stop. When you see something happen, you've got to, if your goal was this and all of a sudden you find out that there's more and more people involved in it, you gotta increase your size of your fight because if they're all working together, I think this is what we're finding out is that we've got a global crime syndicate that's got their fingers into everything. And it's recall when you've got all these people conspiring together. I think that we've got to keep that in mind is that sometimes our cases get much larger but you can't stop you've got to keep going until you handle business and it may it may not be as short a time as you thought it would may take you a little longer but you can't stop you got to keep going because the question is is that is that um you know i think i think here We're not promised by God an easy life. We're not promised at all. He promises to walk with us. And when things go wrong, I can tell you, absolutely, you're going to learn more in the tough times ahead. than you ever do when it's an easier walk. You know, not to say that we always want to be in the midst of disaster and fighting all the time. You got to take those mental health breakers away from these crazy people that are attacking us. I get it. But that gives us time to sit back and go, hmm, what else will I be doing here? to push back against evil and make sure that we're handing a better nation and a better world to those around us than the one that we got handed. And it wasn't really anybody's fault that the things have gone the way that it's gone. Evil is going to do evil. It's going to, you know, if somebody has an evil intention, they're probably going to, unless you put good boundaries in, they're going to continue to go in that direction. It takes a push back. when things go wrong, to stop evil in its tracks. And guess what? Tag, we're all it. This is the world that God put us in. We were chosen to be here at this time. We got a job to do. Step up and do the job that needs to be done. And you know what? The rest we'll get is when we're in the presence of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. And he looks at us and says, well done, good and faithful servant. And that's the goal right now is to be that good and faithful servant so that, you know, we don't just say we love God, but that we show it with our actions and our handling the business at hand. So, well, that time of the show, thank you for coming on today, Kitty. I want you to come back on again. I've got all sorts of good comments here. Ta-da, there's one. You know, people love you. Fantastic. Fantastic. And so thanks for being here. Would you like to say the prayer today, Kitty? I beg your pardon? Would you like to say the prayer today? We always end with a prayer. Well, I don't always know how to pray for everything because God hasn't. So I like the Lord's Prayer. That one covers everything. Well, that's fine. I want to tell you something. A brief little story about that. There was a school system, a school board meeting in Southern Virginia. And it was getting out of hand. And one of the parents stood up and said, I'd like to pray the Lord's Prayer. They said, no, you can't do it. And they arrested her. So everybody else stood up and prayed it together. Perfect. I'd like to. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. Amen. Jesus name. Amen. Thank you. I appreciate that. Well, any last words here from you guys? And then I'm going to go to my twenty twenty two protest and and any last words, Karen? Well, I think if people can recognize what Kitty was talking about in common law, this is the difference between the statutory law that Neil Gorsuch is talking about and the common law, which we should be practicing. If you don't understand the distinction between the two, now is a good time to start learning about that because that's what we need to return to. The statutory law is not for us. It is for the government. Well, in case law, case law is basically creating law from the bench. And every single one of them are irrelevant because it's taking the situation of one individual case and applying it across the board to other cases that may have individual peculiarities that don't really fit. So it's kind of a really bad game that they're playing right now. And it's a little bit on the ignorant side. But anyhow, Kitty, any last words? yes the best way to begin you're learning your common law is to look up go to ballotpedia and look up your original state constitution scroll down to the bottom and they should be able to take you back to your original one that's the one that has the most fundamental principles in it then compare it to your latest one but just if you don't do anything But hone in on one thing. I honed in on the people are the source of power. All power is vested in, consequently derived from the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants and amenable to them at all times. And that means they are subject to the law, accountable, responsible, and liable to punishment. And I would say, Lord, show me how to make that real. But I was quoted at the meetings. So find what's in your constitution that really resonates with you and use the right. Just start speaking it in backing up your speech. So that's the best way to get your feet wet in common law and then get yourself a Black's Law Dictionary first edition, no later than fourth or fifth, and start looking up what those words mean. They mean more than what you could ever imagine and they're rich and they protect your rights. There you go. Well said. Okay, guys, this is where we go to that time of the show. Ding, ding, ding. My twenty twenty two protests. Go to Brandenburg for Governor dot com because I'm the best non-conceder who's ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. And I'd like to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump. We're cowboy boots. Who wears better? Me, because I wear them every day. And then we talk about this, that and the other thing, fixing. And we go on and try to restore. Don't we try? We do restore the the republic, the constitutional republic. and all its absolutely beautiful language and defending our individual rights. So with that said, everybody, thank you guys for being on Karen and Kitty. It was the K and K show today. So, but everybody, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Make it a great day. We're going to go back to politeness. acknowledging people when we see them remembering their names is a great memory exercise you know smile at people acknowledge that they're human hold the door don't walk through and be rude and uh try to try to have the graciousness to other people and i think honestly when we start treating other people with graciousness in our everyday life not just there to fight and argue all the time i mean if you're going to fight about something make sure it's worth fighting for and our republic is worth fighting for the law and a lawful conduct in the way that our public functionaries act. But that extends to all of us. We all need to be introspective. We need to look at ourselves and say, how can we be better? It's not a weakness. It's a strength when you can look at yourself and say, yeah, I'm better. I'm going to be better today than I was yesterday. Jesus, please forgive me for what I did and show me how to be more like you. And guess what? I think things are going to change rapidly. When we approach it that way. Anyhow, have a great day. I'm not going to be on tomorrow because I'm going to be doing advanced lawfare stuff, which I love. But I will be back on next Monday. So have a great day today. Kitty, stay on. Karen, you too. And we'll talk for just a minute. And all of you know that you're loved. And God bless you. God bless your homes with peace, happiness, and the beauty of a good life.