BNN - Brandenburg News Network

BNN (Brandenburg News Network) 2/27/2024 Constitution/Lawful Process & Real History

Published Feb. 27, 2024, 9:02 a.m.

9am Tatar Tuesday with John Tater. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Real History with Courtenay Turner - A weekly discussion on real history and the connections that were never taught in school. Courtenay Turner is the host of “The Courtenay Turner Podcast”, “WIM what is movement”, & her new show coming soon “The Right Voices”. She is also a speaker and aerial acrobatic performer. Having spent her academic career largely seeped in the world of philosophical and psychological texts and being a passionate athlete and performing artist, paved the way for the world in which she is currently immersed. Many today know her as the host of “The Courtenay Turner Podcast” where she boldly seeks truth, diving into a myriad of deep topics surrounding issues of health, fitness, medicine, philosophy, psychology, politics, geopolitics & sociocultural zeitgeist. However, she was born with a rare set of circumstances that has greatly impacted her perspective on life. “All human beings are designed to move and the ways in which we do are our unique creative expressions.” – Courtenay Turner X/Twitter: Rumble:

Transcript in English (auto-generated)

Good morning. Welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg, and it's the 27th day of February, 2024. Welcome to our show. And we're going to get right into it. The Constitution lawful processes on Tater Tuesday with our esteemed guest, Mr. John Tater. How are you doing, John? Greetings. Greetings. I am doing good. Oh, that's good. I'm a. I'm dealing with a little bit of a tendon injury right now. So this morning I'm trying to make a rule today that I'm not going to go out and spaz around walking and all that sort of thing that I normally do. So today is going to be a rest day for Donna. Well, that's a good idea. You've got to have that time anyway. Yeah, I don't do that very well. I don't sit still very well, but it's going to force me to. So let's talk about something today because I've had a lot of people ask me about questions on the election. And I really want to just brush up on this a little bit because there's so many people out there. who are talking election fraud. And the guys that I always have on Monday, guys, gals, it's all the same in Michigan. Everybody's guy in Michigan, right? We were talking about the CISA fraud, the election infrastructure fraud, and what's really going on here. But I typically think that the problems that we're seeing are the fact that people are talking about how things happen, how things happen, but they never quote the law so that we can hold them accountable to the law, to the Constitution, to what's being done. That's the core problem. That's why we haven't fixed anything, because you cannot fix anything unless it's based on the law or on policy. and and what is standing and and so I wanted to go through that with you today I'm gonna I've got I can tell I've got a fan here right in the background hang on let me let me take that down and let's start talking about that you can keep going oh you want me to say something yeah I want to let everybody know that uh We take a look at our three branches of government. We have a judicial branch, and I'm starting with the third article. The judicial branch of government is the law. We have based everything on law. If it doesn't have anything to do with the law, it doesn't belong in the judicial branch. And that's why nothing has gotten done with this election integrity nonsense that anybody's seen there out in the open. I mean, think about the top election integrity people that we see over and over again. And and, you know, it's like, how is it that they put all this this stuff out there, but nothing changes because they don't go after them in a way that's lawful. They sit there and this is all I see. They just bitch about what's not been done correctly. But there's no action. Part of it is because they're all ignorant and they don't know how to deal with it. Well, I think a lot of them are patriots, P-A-Y-T-R-I-O-T-S, trying to make money off of this. And I mean, I think that's what it is. Now, I've had Peter Berninger on, and that guy is launching lawsuits against what, and they're winning. They're actually winning. But there's a deeper problem here. Against who are they launching and what are the lawsuits? Well, I'd have to bring that up, but he's won quite a few of them in the election fraud. And right now he's into smurfing big time, which is fraud for funneling money, dark money and PAC money. Two unsuspecting donors, which I brought up because they hacked me, my credit card, and started making donations to campaigns I didn't even know. And that was through WinRed. And so so but he's going after it with the a lot of it with the fraud, the fraud in the funding of the elections. But then you've got people that have got huge websites that that makes makes everybody feel like, OK, we're really being informed here on what went wrong with the election. And over and over and over again, we hear, well, this is wrong. This is wrong. But nothing comes of it because they're not they're not using a lawful process to either prosecute to back things out. and or keep people on the rails. So, and it has to go back to the knowledge of the constitution and how this was set up and why, because nobody's staying on the rails. Anybody in government that I'm seeing right now just says like, well, yeah, I want to do this. So they do whatever they want to do instead of following a division of powers, which ensures checks and balances. And that's what I want to, I guess, a great way to go into this right now, because If we want to win this, we're going to have to know what came before. How did it unlawfully get changed? Because they're just changing the rules at will. And how do we get it back into the proper process? Well, I wanted to jump in there, but I forgot exactly what it was that you were talking about earlier. But let's take a look at how our government is set up because we seem to, excuse me, we seem to miss that whole point. Again, I started with the executive branch or the judicial branch because I said the judicial branch is law. If it deals with law, then it should be in the judicial branch. If it deals with the executive branch, the executive branch carries out the laws of Congress. That's all they do. They carry out the laws of Congress. That means, did I say anything about making the laws? Did I say anything about executive orders? No. They carry out the laws of Congress. They are the dictatorial power of the government. They get in there and they carry out the law that Congress tells them to carry out. where does politics lie where does the information going back and forth disseminating between people and the the uh proper use of choices where does that happen that happens in legislature it's in congress in congress congress does all of that stuff they're responsible to get together with people and find out what the people want and therefore they pass the law or pass the act and that act ends up going to the executive branch who carries out the law. That's the way our government was set up at the very beginning. And that's the way our government should be operating. But over time, the legislative branch they're a bunch of boneheads all the way up to Washington, D.C., as stupid as most of them could possibly be and as ignorant as most of them could possibly be, don't understand their job. And their job is... who represent the people. That's all their job is. They have no other magical powers that they are supposed to be pushing forward in any kind of laws or rules or regulations for the benefit of the government. Their benefit is for the people. Right. If we go to, there's two cases and the biggest case out there that's going to drop this whole house of cards is Norton versus Shelby County. Because Norton versus Shelby County basically states that if it doesn't have a constitutional authority, it does not exist. And we have to drive that home. We have to say, what constitutional authority do you have to have, you know, we can pick on any department out there, Department of Education. Oh, yeah, that's a good one. I posted that today because they have decided that they're going to try to have warrantless search of homeschool families' homes. This is what they're talking, and Nestle was the one that basically is saying it. She's basically saying that's what they're pushing forward. And I'm sitting here going, you've got to be kidding me. Y'all have lost in the government about 850,000 kids a year. In HHS. And they screw up everything they touch. So now they're going after a small group in order to persecute them. And that's going to give them the precedent to spill over into society. And if people think that it's going to stop there, it's not. It's going to go after everyone's rights. But anyhow, I digress. Go ahead. So we get back to where do they get that authority to have a Department of Education? The Department of Education, if it is established by the legislature and or by the executive branch, can only be used for referencing or for information for the executive branch to help the executive branch operate and do their job. That's all. They have no authority to do anything. They can't make law. And that's been proven already several times by new Supreme Court cases that have come out that these alphabet agencies have no power. All they can do is do what the executive branch tells them to do. So we get back to where does the power of the election happen? There is a Supreme court case in 19. Oh, let's see what I got the date here. Uh, I'm taking notes, right? That, cuz I wanna, I wanna canonize this in my head, 1912, 1911 to 1912. It is called Pacific states, telephone and telegraph company, 1911 through 1912. Yeah. That's when the case was, was, uh, and say it again, Pacific six states versus Oregon. versus Oregon. And I'm gonna this is a little bit of this, I just want to be sure I got the right spot here because I just moved from where I was. And I want to be sure I don't read the wrong stuff. Well, it's gotten so convoluted with all of the information coming in on our elections that we have skipped over the basis, the basics of why it's wrong. We all know what happened in a million ways. In 17 ways to Taiwan, they hacked our elections. But that's great that we know that. I think this is really important. What's the law? Well, the law is that Pacific states basically states, and in a short summation, is that politics, which is a business of operating for the public and so on and so forth, is the legislative branch. That's why, what were the names of those guys, the Trumpeters? Lloyd and Darren Brunson. And I like these guys. I like them a lot. I'm not picking on the Brunsons necessarily, but they went into the wrong venue. The wrong venue meaning that they tried to take the election process to the Supreme Court. That ain't going to happen because the courts are the law. They deal with the law, only the law. They do not deal with politics. Politics is a business of the legislature. And what you're saying is that the legislature is entire, I'm trying to understand it with my hands around this, with the politics being the elections. That's the procedures, right? The procedure of the election process, the whole thing on the elections has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with the law. Okay. And I'm trying to I wish I wouldn't have scrolled to find the date on the stupid. I can't find what I wanted to read. It's a good spot. And it really it's like reading the whole case. But there was one particular passage that is very, very good here. And it basically states in here that the Congress or the government was set up in such a way years ago that we had the power to change the process of government at any time we wanted to. We didn't like a politician or a political person, we'd kick them out of office. We didn't like a law, we could change it. That was part of the legislative branch. That was part of our election process. they've taken that election process away from us by controlling the election, and they had no authority to do that. And so the specific states basically states that, that we have a certain form of government because we have a republic, and our republic, our republican form of government, only uh was set up in such a way that we could change it at any time we wanted to that we could change different things and we could adjust different uh taxes and different ways government operated and different kinds of laws whenever we wanted by the ballot box that was what the whole that was what the whole basic case talks about And so it is a legislative process by which this happens, not a lawful process. Okay. So. the government buys for... This goes back to knowing their jobs. I think this is so important because the Attorney General who basically is pushing for warrantless entry into homes has no business in that arena whatsoever. Absolutely. Besides the fact that it's unconstitutional. Where do they have the power? Where do they have the power to do that? In commerce. In this case, in 1902, Oregon amended its constitution, Article IV, Section 1. This amendment, while remaining an exists clause, vested in the legislative powers in the General Assembly consisted of the Senate and the House of Representatives added to the provision of the following, quote, but the people reserve to themselves power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislative assembly and also reserve power at their own opinion and to approve or reject at the polls any acts of the Legislative Assembly, specifically means for the exercise of power thus reserved was contained in the further clause authorizing both amendments of the constitution and enactments of law to be accomplished by the methods known as initiatives and the common referendums to the and the common reference to as referendums as to the first initiative it suffices to say that the state number of votes were given the right at any time to secure a submission to popular votes for approval of any matter in which was desired to have enacted into law and providing that the provisions thus submitted when approved by popular vote should become the law of the state The second, the referendum provided for the reference to a popular vote for approval or disapproval of any laws passed by the legislature, such reference to take place either as a result of the action of the legislature itself or the petitions filed for the purpose by specific numbers of voters. The full text of the amendment is in the margin. And anyway, it goes on to say that it was up to the people to have to make these choices at any time and anywhere during the voting process. We could approve or disapprove of any kind of laws or acts. And that was based upon us. Now, do we have that authority or do we have that power at this moment in time with the executive branch? i don't even know how to answer that because no we don't we don't have any you know it's like it's like that was you know no we don't we don't have any power we the people are are subject to the dictatorial powers of the executive branch we have no power In as, as individuals, because the executive branch does what the heck they want to do. And they get away with it. We can't go to the legislator who is our legislator and say, Hey, that law is not acceptable to us because that law is coming down from the executive branch through a department that is a non GM or non-government organization. or a body of government that has been selected and or chosen by the governor. Now, the governor, let's carry this a little further. We have the Department of Education now that's supposedly going to go after school homeschool children let's put an organization together call it the uh executive branch of the uh of the of the uh second amendment rights and we're gonna we're gonna decide what second amendment rights you have while we already know the supreme courts beat the heck out of them on that but hate crime is another one our hate speech is one What's hate speech? You can't have hate speech. Whatever they think they want to call it. Exactly. And so that's an executive order that they're putting together, an executive law. That is not a legislative law. It doesn't come from the legislative branch. It comes from the executive branch that they pull these stupid laws and rules and regulations together. That's where we've got to stop. ATF is doing the same thing. Oh, well, we'll just raise the tax on ammunition or we'll make credit card companies track who's buying ammunition. This stuff is totally illegal. It's none of their business. I mean, they certainly are treating us like, you know, this is absolutely what the founding fathers were against. It's the overreach. And they don't have the right to tell us. Not overreach. It's use their patience. Yeah, it's like they don't have the right to tell us anything. And that's really the truth, other than what we have determined are the rules we want society governed by. That's right. And they're just supposed to carry it out. What do we do about all of this? I mean, how do we as individuals... change this because we can't expect the legislative branch to do that they're all asleep they're all asleep at the switch they don't know what they're doing they have idiots out there right now making comments about uh the article 5 of the constitution which is the constitutional convention We don't need a constitutional convention. First of all, the state of Michigan's constitution is going to go defunct in two years. We got to do something. We're going to have to come up with a new constitution. Well, it's illegal anyway. The one we've got in place is illegal. Correct. Correct, but two years from now, it ends up going away. We have to come up with a new Constitution. Hopefully, we have people with some brains that can help put a better Constitution together. I say we go back to the original one and take a look at that first as a first step instead of building on what we have because the 1963 Constitution is basically crap. So we need to go back to the beginning and get ready, you know, and people have to start thinking if they want, if they want to not just follow what's being told to them, we've got to be educated and start critically thinking and saying, well, how, you know, We need to not build on, we need to level this thing and go back to what we started with because they just keep adding in, adding in, and more government is not going to fix this. Less government is going to fix this, not more. They are going to continue to vote themselves pay raises, to give themselves more rights, to take our rights, to be in total control and treat us like the herd that's just supposed to produce for them. Well, that's part of it. The other part of it is how do we fix it? Okay, let's talk about it. We can kind of complain and argue and say that this is all bad. First of all, get better people in office. Yeah, that's step number one. Step number two, we need to fix the voting system back to the way it was originally stated, where we had a one-day vote. You had to get up and you had to go to the polls. If you can't go to the polls, then you don't vote. That's all. You have to get up and physically go to the poll, physically show your ID, and then be able to vote. That's the only way we can do it. And it's gotta be a one-day deal. Let's make a vacation that one day. It's voting day. Everybody- Voting day, holiday. That's right. Everybody except maybe the emergency people get a day off and they get to go to vote. And everybody goes to vote. And that's it. There's one day voting. That's all. There's none of this wheat clothing and all this other crap that's going on. Yeah, yeah. I'm kind of done with this whole excuse of not going to vote. And if this is one of those things that I just, you know, people, I just want to carry on with my life. I don't want to be disturbed. I want to stay home. You know, I get it. There are some people that have difficulties getting there and such. But sometimes we stop. How do I say this? For the good of the nation, what do we do that's for the good of the nation, which is completely in disarray right now? Do we make an extra effort? I don't know. I'm kind of done with this accommodating everybody to go change their sock drawer or whatever it is. You got the military out there who are overseas and such. There's ways that we can get this thing done in one day without absentee ballots or the mail-in ballots. There are ways that we can do this that nobody's talking about because they just keep going back to the unlawful way that we become accustomed to rather than thinking about how can we make this work in another process. The military could handle a voting situation also. One of two ways, they can have a one-day vote. On their base, where they're at. Or if we want, we can just make it specifically if you're on military and you're off duty or off America, out of the continental United States, then you can vote absentee. But that's the only option. Well, I don't even see why we should even have it that way. Like you said, there should be a way. I mean, for God's sakes, we've got 850 military bases across the world. I would think that that could be accomplished fairly easily without sending things through the mail where we know they're hacking it. and accomplishing it. There's ways of doing this. And so this is nonsense. This is a nonsense excuse right now. So, okay, one day voting, show ID, voting day as a holiday, and make it be something that is celebrated. It's the one day that we are all equals. When we go into that polling station to vote, we should all be equal on that day because we each have one vote. then it's the same for everyone. So, okay, so let's go there. Now let's talk about another thing is that we should be voting in private, but counting in public. That disqualifies the machines immediately, besides more involvement in our- Absolutely. Machines and computers should not exist in the voting process. This should all be paper ballot stuff because it should be trackable. You know, the paper trail. Got to have the paper trail. I audit it. That's right. And we should have as a third option or a third part to this, a forensic audit on every single election. And there's got to be a time limit to this, a forensic audit. So this is my thought on it, okay? So if you have the ballots and you do a hand count in the precinct with a camera pointed down on the ballots and you have several people tallying it up that are tallying as they count it, hand tally on something, Then you've got, if the tally matches everyone, we're done. If there's a mistake, we go back and we redo it again. You can still blow through those ballots like that in a relatively short period of time in the precincts. And we may need to break the precincts down. Think about this. The states in the United States are the size of our entire country. of the entire country and when it was established. So now, instead of having a country that's the size of a state, did you see what I'm saying? It's too big and we need to be smaller, decentralized units. And the, the states have to be run like a small country, not the way that they're being run right now. It's totally usurpation through the 10th amendment. What caused that, um, Violation of the state rights. That was the 17th Amendment, right? When they took the senators away from the states and made them into the general masses to vote for them. The state legislators, the state senators needed to be supporting the state. So the 17th Amendment needs to go away. Number one, it's not a constitutional amendment. It's an illegal amendment. because you can't change the body of the Constitution, which they did. So that's a totally illegal amendment. And it needs to go back to the power and giving the power back to the states where it belongs. And that's why the senators were established. Like the senators in Michigan, that's a waste of time. Why do we have senators in Michigan? Seriously. And they're a waste of money, a waste of time, and just a waste of people. Waste of, maybe you want to call them talented. I'm not sure that they are. But most of them are, as far as I'm concerned, scumbags. Well, the 16th Amendment destroyed states' rights, too, because of the taxation. No, 16th Amendment really didn't do anything. The illegal behavior of the 16th Amendment by the IRS, which is an organization that does not exist. And it's a domestic terrorist organization. Norton v. Shelby County says if they have no constitutional authority, they do not exist. So let's put them who they are. They do not exist. The IRS does not exist as an organization against the public in the form of income tax. So we can go into the income tax amendment. Let's stay on elections for a minute because I want to stay on the elections. Yeah, I don't want to go into the 60s. Yeah, because we could bust this thing open like crazy, too. I mean, we've already talked about the illegal taxation ad nauseum. But I think we need to keep going over it because people need to understand how illegally our government is actually conducting itself. And everybody needs to take it seriously. responsibility for this because we need to stand together and not just say, well, I don't know what to do. Well, first of all, we got to get educated and then we have to do something. We've got to instruct them. We have to be involved in this and we have to remove them if they absolutely have not done their job. And there's ways of doing that. Oh, yeah, there are. OK, so so now we got to go back to the most important document that we are the most important Supreme Court case that has ever been written that has the most power that can bring this whole house of cards down. And that's Norton versus Shelby County, because, as I've said before, and I must say it again, If it has no constitutional authority, it does not exist. Norton says that 100% that it has to have constitutional authority in order for there to be a de jure office. If it's not a de jure office, it's a de facto office and de facto offices cannot exist. You can have de facto people in those offices, people that are totally qualified in a de jure office who must act de jure, but you cannot have A de facto office cannot ever create a de facto office. So it takes us all the way back to all of the alphabet organizations that exist. And that's where we have to start. You know what? I'm going to tell you that the judicial branch, people in the judicial branch, the government, the judges and the attorneys are afraid to death of Norton. They are afraid because it's going to bring the whole house of cards down. The executive branch is going to be destroyed also by Norton versus Shelby County because all of the alphabet organizations, the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of All those departments are de facto. They have no constitutional authority to exist. In order for us to have a government where we, the people, run the government, we have to be involved in allowing these kinds of branches to come on board. If we don't have our voice in bringing on these branches, they can bring on branches for whatever they want to. Well, they have. And they have, obviously. And then they write rules and regulations and try to capture entire industries so that they can extort more money out of them and have a barrier to entry to new members or new people that want to get into those industries. So it really is so disabling to this nation. It's incredible. And then they get their little comfy government job when they be a good boy or good girl. So we as citizens, if we could do anything in our life that we have to do to get the power is understand Norton and start applying it. Start using the lexicon, the information, especially the language. I've still not heard very many people talk de jure, meaning lawful and constitutional. I haven't heard... Congressman or executive people or even the judicial people talk de jure. They all talk de facto now and then, and they talk about once in a while usurpation, but they do not talk de jure. They do not talk about constitutional authority. Why? Why? Because we've been bringing this... I've been beating this drum since 2013 pretty hard. In fact, I wrote 147 letters certified to Congress, to the Judicial Tenure Commission in Congress, Judicial Oversight Committee, which is a joke. And I told them about Norton, and I pushed that... information out to those people. So the only thing that came from it was usurpation. They used the word usurpation since that time period. Was it my letter? I don't know. But when people start... Well, and aren't they part of the bar? Isn't that like an organization that's basically staffed or it's a bar association? Well, a lot of the people that are in Congress are members of the bar. Yeah, absolutely. That should never happen. If you're going to become a member of the bar, if you're going to be practicing law, that's all you can do. Once you get that little... sheepskin, you're done. You cannot run for government. You certainly cannot be part of the legislature. You certainly cannot be part of the executive branch. At worst, or at best, you could be part of the judicial branch only as an officer of the court. That's it. That's it. You can plead cases and so on and so forth, but you have no other ability to get any other position anywhere else. And this is another place where they've usurped the, their authority here by re by disqualifying people for practicing, you know, or being counsel because it says counsel that, you know, you have the right to counsel. It's not a, it's not a right to a bar attorney and you can choose the counsel that you wish. That's right. You have a right to counsel, but that doesn't mean you have to have a bar attorney. That's my understanding. Correct. That is correct. First of all, where is the license to practice law? There isn't one. There isn't one. It's called a bar. Membership. Membership. It's a membership. Membership. So this is a private club that is in the judicial system that operates and pretty much acts as a legislator from time to time. Our local judges, district court judges and even circuit court judges and appellate judges act as legislators. They pass certain rules and regulations or laws based on not the law, based on what's going on. based on politics and they have no authority to do that because that's not their job. Their job is to deal with the law, black and white. This is the law. You're either, you're either doing it correctly or you're doing it incorrectly by the law. And that's all you have to operate on. Look at the pattern here though, too. So the people that are part of the bar, are under kind of a, you know, it's like a, it's a good old boys club that kind of protects itself. And they are, if they were to stand up with an individual attorney stood up against it, they're all of their schooling and all the efforts that they put into this, even if they had the right intentions can be, um, You know, they can they can experience quite a bit of of let's call it pressure to lose their jobs like, you know, you know, coercion and threat and all of the same thing happened with the doctors, the doctors in the system. All of these professional organizations are set up like a cartel. It's a it's a it's own little mafia system. that holds the members in check to whatever those in the higher ups believe. In effect, it's a cult. We have the same thing with the political parties. They are absolutely wrong. The structure is the same thing over and over again. And, you know, there's nothing new under the sun. This has all been done before, and it's repeated over and over again. People get in power, and then they look for more power, more money, and such, instead of being of service, trying to do the right thing. It's the craziest thing. Okay. Serious human flaw. Serious flaw. Mm-hmm. We have to go back to number one Norton versus Shelby County. And we as the people need to start bringing this information out to our public functionaries. Every time we walk in front of a public functionary, we should ask them that very important question. Are you gonna be a de jure officer occupying a de jure office? And if the public functionary says, I don't know what that means, then you say to that public functionary, well, then you resign or you get off the platform because you're unqualified to be a public functionary. Then if they say, oh, yeah, I'm going to be a de jure public functionary. OK, then please explain that to me. What does de jure mean to you? And you're going to get them to a point that they're either going to understand what the Constitution is all about or not. They'll swear an oath to this document. But when we go through it next week and we look at Article 2, Article 1, rather, Section 10, we're going to see that they violated almost every single one of those requirements that they're not allowed to do. Because they don't read the Constitution. They don't even know what it says. And they don't even know what the terms are in the Constitution. So how do you expect them to behave and operate properly in public office when they have no idea what the Constitution says? Now we come back to elections. The election process that has been set up by the executive branch, first of all, does the executive branch have the authority to do that? No, they do not. They do not. Who has the power for politics? The legislature. Legislature. And we've talked about that in the... Pacific States Supreme Court decision. Only the legislature has the power to deal with elections, with elections, with the process of elections, with voting and so on and so forth. Only the legislature. Can the legislature abrogate their authority or- What's the other word? give their authority to another branch of government? No. No, they cannot. No, they cannot. That's their job, their duty. That's like you're hiring a maid for your house, and then the maid gives the job to her little daughter or her son. You didn't hire the son or the daughter. If they did do a lousy job on your house, You didn't hire them. You hired the maid to do the job. Well, I hired the legislator to do a specific job for me. That's to run the elections. They're not doing it. Well, look, that's what Nestle did when they found the ballot harvesting in Muskegon. And it was Chris Kyla that found that, the GBI strategies that went on there. And you look at what happened with that. She abdicated all responsibility by handing this over to the state police. which is a unionized police force, which I've got a big beef with this right now. She didn't have the authority to do that. Right, right. She didn't have the authority to do that. She walked away from her job and said, I don't know what happened. I turned it over to the police. That doesn't take the responsibility away from her just because she handed it to somebody else. That's not okay. She doesn't even have the authority to have that responsibility. That's got to go back to the legislature. We got to go back to the legislative branch and say, what are you doing? You're not even doing your job anymore. You guys got to get out of office. Well, they did the same thing when they handed this over to the Board of Elections, Board of Canvassers, the Board of Canvassers to certify the election. You know, they handed that over. They could have stopped it and decertified this. They chose not to. And that's the entirety of it. It's the Republicans and the Democrats. It's not one branch. There's no heroes here. There is absolutely no heroes in this sitting in the seats because I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anyone talking about this because they're all guilty. They are all guilty. They could have stopped. One person can stop this, and they chose not to. That's right. They could have. They didn't. Therefore, they are all guilty. They committed acts that, in my opinion, they committed acts which should lead to a conviction of treason. They have committed acts of treason, period. You're being nice about it. All right, I'm being very nice. They committed treason. Yes. They absolutely committed treason. And when I look at it, you know, first off, because we have a governor that broke the law, and I went to at least a third to somewhere between a third to a half of the sheriffs in the state and asked, why didn't you arrest Whitmer? And they advocated their role by saying, Who's going to prosecute her? I think I'm going to try to do what I can in my community to be good to my community. And in that statement alone, they abdicated their authority and they abandoned their job description to uphold the law. And they were the only ones that could have prosecuted, could have had her removed. Well, if all of the sheriffs, let's go back to them for a second, if all of the sheriffs would do exactly their job, would just protect their county, then the executive branch would lose all of their power. What could they do? If I was the county sheriff, if I was the county sheriff of Washtenaw County at this moment, And the executive branch came in, BATF came into my neighborhood. I would say, you have no permission to be in my neighborhood, BATF. You're going to pack up and you're going to hit the county line immediately or you're going to all be arrested. Right. Well, and I think it's just like I'm going to go big or go home here. Even the state police, they're getting all the police exactly the same way. have no power in the county. Nobody has any power in the county but the county sheriff. They basically turned it into a little Gestapo that has unchecked power you can't remove because it's unionized. And they will not remove an officer that's out of control, whereas the people have the right to remove a sheriff that is breaking the law. They basically are entrenched. And what I heard that I cannot necessarily confirm was that Whitmer had the state police following the legislature, the congressman around. If I was the sheriff in Washtenaw County, I would say to the Michigan State Police, you have no authority on this turf, anywhere in this area, get out. Now, if you want to drive up and down the streets and flash your lights and look like you're going to do something, you fine. But you don't give a ticket. You don't do anything. You don't arrest. You have no authority in this county, in Washtenaw County at all. Which comes back to which comes back to they should maybe be a help. They started out as an investigative organization, I believe. And if they were put back into like advanced services that the counties could contract to say, you know, I'm okay with that. But because that way, some of the high level things could be asked to come in by the sheriff, but they shouldn't just be able to roll right in. And they've taken all the funding away from local policing and the counties. One of the problems that I saw is that the sheriffs can't keep people They can't keep people in those positions because they don't have enough money to do the local policing. That was based on what the governor did. And so the money first and all the grants go through the state police and they kind of chip out what they can. And then also people will leave the sheriff's department and go to the state police for more money. Well, the problem with the funny money system. Yeah, it's terrible. The funny money system creates funny money stuff. Yeah. The fake money creates fake processes, creates fake government. And that's what we are in the middle of. And so that is another whole ballgame that has to be operated by. But why would you take your... Let's go all the way back to the individual. The individual who makes the money, because he's the only one that makes the money, he's the only one that produces anything, or he's the only one that produces some sort of a living for whatever, and he pays a tax, and it ends up going to the city, and then it ends up going to the county, then it ends up going to the state. Why? It stops at the county. And a little bit goes to the state. See, we got this backwards. Totally backwards. And they dribble it back to us. We start at the local levels. We take care of local levels. And those levels move up to finally the national government. But the only way it happens is that the money's here at the people. Why do we take our money and send it to Washington so they can send it back to us? Yeah, it's crazy. And who's taking, because somebody's going to take a bite out of that money every step along the way. Oh, yeah. Going back to the county sheriff, that's the county process. The county should be setting that up and having a strong sheriff's department. That's not something the state does. That's not something this local city does. County is the most important part of that. the way the structure of this government was set up to begin with. So the county sheriff is the one that should have the greatest amount of resources of all of them. The state police, state police have no authority in the county. The federal government has no authority in the county. None of them have authority in the county and the sheriff, has all the authority to do all that he wants to do and keep the law and the peace in the county. He's our protection against the runaway government, which is what we have, but he's not doing his job. There's very few out there that are doing their job as county sheriffs. And that's what we need. We need people that are gonna say, no, we're not gonna do that. You should have been sheriff, okay? That's all I had to say. You should have been governor, actually. You truly should have been governor. If you would have been governor, I wouldn't have had to run. Problem fixed with John Tater. Well, it would have been nice if I had been in there. Things would have been shaken up in Michigan severely. because what we are running right now is an out-of-control government and a dictatorial government. We have dictatorial people in the executive branch that are overriding the legislative branch that have no authority to do that. We have a judicial system that is totally out of whack. Those guys are afraid of their own shadow. uh in the judicial system the only power they have is the power that they can enforce upon the people but they have no people don't uh have any respect for those people anymore for people in the judicial system for people in the uh um I mean just getting to a point that you're that we're losing respect for the police departments too because of who they are understand that the State police are there specifically to protect the state government. That's all. The local police departments are there specifically to protect the local city governments. That's all they're there for. They're not there to protect the people. Yeah, that's part of it. That's an ancillary duty. But the Supreme Courts have said more than once that the police have no responsibility to come to your house and protect you from a criminal. That's the sheriff. That's the sheriff. The sheriff protects us from the government, from the runaway government, and from criminals. That's what their job is. Their job is to protect the people. That's it. And then we would have a balance of power that we would be able to, that would be affected for us, that would be effectual for us. Right now, everybody in the so-called law enforcement departments, including the sheriffs, are part of the police department, are part of the sheriff, are part of the state police. They're all part of the same organization. They give tickets, they collect money, they do revenue. They all do the same thing. They don't protect the people. That's right. They don't protect the people. And so they have abrogated their job due also. A lot of them are, unfortunately, bar attorneys. The police? Yeah. I didn't know that. But the sheriffs. A lot of sheriffs are bar attorneys. I did not know that. And that's a question I never asked them. Yeah, that's a good question to ask. Where's your education from? What are you doing? And are you an attorney? Or do you have a bar license? They may not be an attorney. They may have a bar license, which is the same thing. Really? The bar, yeah. Okay, that's a new one for me. I had no idea. That was not even a question I thought of asking them. Yeah, well, I'll ask them. I know of several of them. I can't think of the one who was in Macomb. What's his name? Wickersham, Wicker something or other. No, it wasn't Wickersham. It was before him, I think. He was a bar attorney. I don't know if Wickersham. Isn't it funny that Wickersham is like part of the Dr. Seuss books and such, like the Wickersham brothers? They were mischief makers, so I thought that's kind of funny. I didn't know that. But we ought to check and see what his background is. Is he a bar attorney? Does he have a law degree? He had one of the worst answers of all the sheriffs that I talked to. Ah, he might be an attorney. I don't know. I don't know. It was kind of ridiculous, but so goes it, you know. But that, you know, we go back to to, you know, getting into where Courtney is this morning. Courtney said she'll be on this morning. I hope she's OK. Well, we'll see if she gets on here. You go back to the elections. And the main things that are wrong is we do have foreign involvement in our elections. And the big... and the big money involved in it. You know, when we look at we look at all of the money that's pouring in and then the criminality of how they how they move that money and how a candidate that one of the metrics of determining who's going to win the elections is looking at this and saying and everybody says it, they all say the same thing, that that the money that a candidate raises determines the election. Well, when I was running for governor, Yeah, when I was running for governor, I'd have people come up to me and say, how much money do you have behind you? Oh, I had that all the time. Yeah, that too. Oh, yeah. That was a constant. Yeah, so if you don't have any money beyond you, I'm not going to put my name. I'm not going to sign your petition or I'm not going to vote for you because you don't have a chance. I guess not. Not if you have that attitude. The problem is that too many people have that stupid attitude that, oh, it's either going to be money or you don't have a name for yourself or whatever. And therefore, you cannot run for governor or you shouldn't run for governor because you're wasting time and energy, whatever. We want to get somebody that has a lot of money in the government. That's not what we want. That's not what we're looking for. What's the matter with you people? Where's your brains? If they've got big money behind them, who's paying their way? That's right. And then you look at the campaign finance reports. That's something that a lot of people determine things by that are in politics. They look at the campaign finance reports. to see where the money's coming from, blah, blah, blah. So then they figured out how to do smurfing, which all of them are doing it. The Democrat Party has a higher instance of it, but the Republican Party, I believe, is over 50% has smurfing in the campaigns, which is running money through the campaigns, unbeknownst to people, because they basically, it's identity theft, right? And they'll run it through unsuspecting individuals over 65 years old because most of the people in that category will not either go after it or even check on it or see that there's anything wrong. You know, they may not even have the access to look at that. So they're kind of victimizing an older population to affect their goals. Right. And so they run all this dark money through it. And all of a sudden, this campaign has all this money sitting in it. Why is it that money is determining our elections are bought and paid for? They are not honest elections. Not at all. And so so this shouldn't shouldn't be. And all of this, all of this campaigning and the election process in general and getting into office and staying in office and how much money is being money laundered through our government. This needs to be done, completely done and over with and put it back to what it intended. The founding fathers intended it to be every vote equal. Everyone's voice equal, everyone being counted, no excuses for failure, because that's by and large what we see is huge excuse for failure. And I really want to condense this into being able to tell people who perhaps have not been into politics that and or you know um even people that don't understand the process why this is so wrong and what's gone wrong to be able to communicate it to them because we need everyone jumping into this arena to know that their voice has been taken away this is just another form of censorship when they cheat in the elections they have They have truly violated the rights of individuals in such an egregious way. It is not something to be taken lightly. This is a matter of national security. This is absolutely invasion of our nation. It's a coup. You can call it anything you want, but every part of it's wrong. I agree. 100%. If you were talking to me as someone who has no knowledge, what would you tell me as a citizen of the United States and how they're hacking the election through, oh, I don't know, just giving everybody off your driver's license the right to vote whether you're a citizen or not? I don't have a driver's license. I haven't had one for six years. Okay. So how do you make sure that people that are voting are actually citizens of this nation? Well, you'd have to have a passport or you'd have to have some form of photo ID. I have all kinds of photo IDs. I have a military retirement. I have a passport. A birth certificate would be fine. There's a bunch of different ways you could prove who you are. Okay. So if you were telling people that are new to this subject, what would you tell them in a condensed, bullet-pointed form of the issues that we're dealing with in the rigging of our elections? Well, you'd have to perform or you'd have to present a photo ID, first of all. You'd have to have somewhat of an education because a Republican form of government cannot survive with ignorant people. You have to be educated. Is that constitutional? That you have to be educated? Yeah. No, that's just kind of an axiom of law. If you're not educated, you're not going to be able to make the appropriate decisions. So you have to be educated. Uh, and yeah, there's a lot of people out there that are, you know, once upon a time, uh, years ago, the only people that could vote were people that owned property. You couldn't, oh, you couldn't vote just because you were an American citizen. You had to be a property owner. Why? Because where would the government get money from property? they would be able to tax the property or whatever. So you had to be a property owner. And also you'd have to show some form of education in order to be a property owner. You can't just be just a simpleton that doesn't do anything, that just goes to work and makes a living and doesn't want to learn anything. Then you can't vote. That's it. And since that time, you know, we got in with the suffrage laws and we came up with everybody has a right to vote. But we've we've gotten the dregs of the world in the process. Also, those people off the streets that can't that that can't make a living, they can't do anything that that are themselves more money on the backs of other people. Yeah. And they and they and they can vote. Why? Why would you give them the power to vote? And so therein lies part of the problem that we have. We have turned it over to everybody. And now they want to give it to everybody, whether you're an illegal alien or not. What do you know about America? What do you know about this country, about the Constitution, about any of this stuff? And you have the right to vote? Are you kidding me? This is where we have gone with this country. We have gone over the end, over the top, over the cliff. We need to bring back the power to vote. You know what? You've got to have at least the high school education before you can vote, maybe. That's a good start. That's good, except that means they have to go through government schools. So what do you do with that? I mean, the whole damn thing has got a problem. I know. I didn't say government schools, but you've got to be able to read, write, and do math, basically. You've got to have a basic education. And maybe that's just elementary and middle school. And then you don't have to go on to high school where you get more indoctrinated. Although indoctrination, we understand, is... government schools all along. But we know that schools should not be part of the government. We should not have the government or the Department of Education in either state or federal level. It should be local. Who knows better for my kids than me? Right. They're not property of the state. That's right. That's the thing that we have to talk about. And that gives us stronger families, which is the smallest form of government. And that needs to be respected. We should be decentralizing everything. That's right. the decentralization of the government process in general should go back to deferring to individuals and families and not parties, not associations, not the lettered agencies and anyone who sits in a seat. is there to serve a particular function with a job with a job category laid out strongly laid out and if they usurp that they need to be immediately removed there has to be an immediate removal and with no basically no discussion if you step outside of what of what your assigned task is which was assigned by the voters the people you're done And I don't know, I would go further right now because every single one of them in the legislature, as well as, and I realized that a lot of them have gotten in there under coercion and threat. There's a lot of people that have been caught in and threat coercion in our government. However, with that said, they either start squealing like a little pig and telling who did this to them and bring this whole organization down or they're in on it. And so it's like either they start cooperating and start bringing down these people around them and bringing them down hard, or I'm an advocate of stripping them of their citizenship. They may not ever vote. They may not ever own actual property because they are an enemy if they make it through tribunals for treason. Most of those people that are in power right now that are corrupt, are going to be done. They're never going to be able to run for office again. They cannot ever hold a position of power, ever, ever, ever. And so that is the thing. Let's not call it power anymore. Let's get back to that. But it is. They have stolen this power. So we have to disable them so they can never do this again because they didn't have the moral fortitude to say not just no, but hell no. And, you know, and not only not only am I not going to buck this to the threat of coercion, I'm going to lay your sorry butts out there and you're going to jail for threat and coercion. know and I get it there's a lot of people that have had you know guns held to the head of their families I get it what do you do when somebody does does that I actually somebody asked me that and they got a good laugh at my answer I'm not going to say it here because all of a sudden people will be out there you know losing their total minds over what I said but I was sticking through it pretty extra sure two would walk in and only one would walk back out but But you know what I mean? It's like there is some complications involved in this. And it's going to have to be met with an incredible amount of discernment and being able to sift out people who have also been taken captive in a system that has a lot of ways of imprisoning people and unlawful imprisonment. But if they want to cooperate and start laying these people out so we sift it down to the core, now we're talking. But that doesn't mean it goes without some consequences either. We have to go back again to the, you know, I don't like to use the word power because I want to drive home the fact that they're public functionaries. Right. They don't have any power. They have a function. They have a job to do, and that is it. And they don't understand the job, and then they've reached outside of the job, and then they get their little clubs and their cliques inside of there, and they all agree to do it and cover for each other. Yeah, well, see, that's part of the public functionary process. You have a job to do, your description is such, and if you step outside that job description, you have no immunity, and you can be sued. There you go. Oh, that's a tough one, John. Taking away their immunity. I love it. They don't have any immunity. They really don't have any immunity. I agree with that. They only have immunity when they are fit within their job description. If they step outside the job description, they have no immunity. Agreed. And that's judges, that's prosecutors, that's governors, that's legislators, that's everybody. They have no immunity. If they could give themselves immunity, we could certainly give ourselves immunity. Because we're more powerful than they are. I'm going to go ahead and bring in my next guest here a minute. And morning, Courtney, how you doing? Good morning. Welcome. She's backstage listening to this conversation. And, you know, it's like all of us I know are on the same page with holding people accountable. And getting the truth out there. So, John, give yourself a plug here for the Wednesday night group, because these people are phenomenal. They have stepped up in so many ways. The group that John has on Wednesday night. And so give everybody a way to get to there, because you want to know informed patriots. This is a great group of people. If you would like to show up on a Wednesday night, this Wednesday we'll be on Zoom. Please send me, either give me a phone call at 734-968-4715, or you can write me at JTater2, and that's T-A-T-A-R. Everybody seems to be spelled Tater O-R or E-R, but it's A-R. Yeah, they think it's a potato because I keep putting the potato hat up there, but it's a joke, people. It's a joke, okay? So it's jtater2 at and ask for an invite, and I will send you an invite. And you can join us on Wednesday nights and see what's going on. We're there between 7 and 9. And last week we were at Nicola's. We had a wild time at Nicola's. This time we're going to be... Oh, no, it was two weeks ago. Last week we had some issues. By the way... cool sidetrack here but man we were clipping in and out last week like every every 10 minutes So you should go in and join in with Nicholas so that John Tater can ask you a trick question and then look at me and go, you're wrong. Because everybody should be tatered at least 10 times in their life. It's like falling off a horse. If you don't fall off a horse three times, you don't know how to ride. Okay. If you don't get tatered at least 10 times in your life, you know what? You shouldn't be in politics because he does correct error. So thanks. Thanks for coming on today, John. Appreciate it so much. And we'll see you next week, Tuesday. Yeah. Tater Tuesday. T-A-T-A-R. Yes. So long. All right. Have a great day. Hey, how you doing? Well, thank you. How are you doing? Good. It's real history. And I love how nerfy we all are. We kind of like move around to get into the window. It's funny, isn't it? So what's happening in Courtney land? Well, it's interesting hearing your conversation because, you know, I've been back to the Senate. I've been to the state capitol twice in the past month. I'm actually going back later today. And this time it's on the school choice issue. So I've been really diving into the whole education issue and the history of education. Well, and I think you heard that Nestle said that they're going for warrantless search of homeschool families' homes. Yeah. And they're approving that this is okay. This is specifically a violation against the highest law of the land, and it's taking ownership of children and making them a ward and or property of the state. And I can't stand this woman, just so you know, even though I'm working with the office right now to make sure that there are three people charged with felonies that they committed in the signature gathering fraud. Because it's what they're doing. So they're doing the job there. But all of this usurpation of power should end immediately. She should be resigning for what she's done. So should Whitmer. So should Nessel. They have all broken the law. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. We have the right with our First Amendment right to question it and they need to suck it up because they need to question it. Yeah, redress of grievances. Yeah. Redress of grievances. Yeah. The peaceably assemble and redress tradition for redress of grievances seems to be part of the First Amendment that a lot of people... have forgotten or never learned maybe and you know what that doesn't that doesn't include going out and acting like an idiot and protesting and violating other people's rights or destroying that is not peaceful and so those people are breaking the law too but anyhow so let's talk about what happened at the senate here this week yeah um I do want to address one thing though that he said um because I was listening to her at the end and uh He was saying how, you know, not everybody could vote and he thought that people should be educated to vote. I actually don't agree. yes they were one of the reasons why I hate property taxes I'll just put that up front I i think that they're it's very legal well well so this is the thing not back then it was very different and this is what I'm going to outline because it's very deceptive today because today you know our account one of the primary tenants our country was founded upon was the right to life, liberty, and property, right? Property rights were very important to our founding fathers. However, back then, as he said, part of the reason why they really cared about property taxes was because everybody who owned property was voting. So it was a part of, you know, kind of It was almost like a vetting system. It's like a co-op, if you will. You know, like if you're, you know, I come from New York City where there were a lot of co-ops. And if you had a co-op, it was almost like everybody owned the building. So you had board meetings. You were all kind of, I'm not a fan of co-ops because the boards can really screw you. But you were investing in something that you were part owner of. And it was a collaborative thing. conjoined ownership. And that's kind of how they felt about the government. It was people who own property were now going to have a say in what was happening. And so this was a way that they would fund their organization essentially, but it was an organization of the people, consent of the governed. So, but it's very different today because today everybody votes. And now the reason I can't stand property taxes now is because what happens if you default on your property? on your property taxes, the government seizes your property. So essentially you don't own it. You lease it. You never own it. We never own our property. Unless you have a land patent, then you don't pay taxes. So I'm going to be doing a show on that. I've just talked to them. Yeah. But go on. Yeah. Well, yeah. If the government can take anything away from you, you've never had the right and it's never been yours because, and, and they will usurp that. And if you don't fight it, you have to fight to keep your rights because if they try to usurp it, I mean, look at all of the, look at all the laws that they've signed into being and they've never even read them. They just sign it and then they'll read it after they sign it. How can this possibly, or they don't read it at all. Somebody else tells them how to vote. Yes. And, you know, Michigan has 2000 bills a year that go in front of our legislature. And it's like, tell me that any of them have ever read these bills. They probably get a cursory analysis by somebody else that says, well, this is really what the bill says. Well, how do they know that that's what the bill says? They never read it. They just stamp it. And then somebody tells them what to do. All they are right now is a figurehead. Right. Paid for. Yeah. And are bought and paid for elections, which give us the illusion that we have a choice, which we have no choice because the political parties are picking who we can choose from. Either you've got candidate A or candidate B. That's it. And they're all involved because they've got them. Yep. Absolutely. And install them. Yeah. So property taxes, I don't support because it means you're renting your property from the government. But it was very different back then because they were part of the government, the people who were voting. Essentially, if you think about it that way, it was like a co-op would be the best analogy. But that's not how it operates today. I don't agree with his idea that you need to, you know, have a certain level of education to vote. What I think would be better, honestly, would be like training to vote. Like you have a civics class that you have to pass or something. Most like people who become citizens when they move here, they know way more about civics than most Americans do because they actually have to take a test in order to become a citizen. And I feel like something like that would make a lot more sense than, you know, education where, and that's what I was going to go through today. But I can talk to you about my experience at the Senate first. That was, it was very interesting because I was there, you know, a few weeks earlier, I did a presentation covering the NACs and natural asset companies. And that experience was great. I had been invited by Senator Frank Nicely, who is wonderful. And he's very awake. And I think he's doing good work. The best he can. Senator Frank Nicely. And so he had invited me to come and do a presentation on these natural asset companies. So I went and I did. And they were very receptive. I think it was something most of them were not very familiar with. So it was a different kind of environment. And I was also presenting. It wasn't like a testimony. It wasn't a, you know, it wasn't small meetings. It really was a presentation for a subcommittee, for the agricultural committee. This time, We had several individual meetings with a bunch of the legislators, and we were talking about the issue of school choice. Governor Lee has presented this Education Freedom Scholarship Act, and essentially it's about school choice, but it's very misleading, once again, because we already have choice. People can homeschool, people can go to private school, public school, but what this is is government school choice. It's all about vouchers. And it is exactly what you were talking about in Michigan. They're trying to control and take ownership of the homeschoolers and the private schoolers because they are outside of the government purview currently. But in Tennessee, they actually really aren't. This is another huge problem that I discovered is that there is no truly independent homeschooling in Tennessee. Other states have much more. And this is an interesting thing that they do is they seem to create these like, different honeypots, and they create different targets in different states. So, you know, like people think of Florida, for example, as being a very free red state, which in some ways it is, however, it is one of the states that has one of the largest infrastructures for surveillance for, you know, what will I think later become bio digital convergence, but it's all of these track and trace metrics that they have. imposed and bills, legislative bills regarding surveillance in Florida. So in some ways it is, but then they have all of these, what I look at as infrastructure for creating the biodigital convergence and transhuman agenda. And Tennessee, the homeschooling only has a few categories. There's one that's like the online homeschooling, and that's obviously not really independent because they've already given you the curriculum and you have to pass specific tests. So you're already under the government regulations there. Then they have what they call independent homeschooling, which is not truly independent at all. They also have to comply with like certain medical regulations, certain testing. So of course you have to, you know, You have to create a curriculum so they can pass these tests. So they're being indoctrinated whether the parents want to or not. And then there is what they call the umbrella schools. And this is category four. And these have, you know, religious schools. exemptions and religious affiliation. Those have the most freedom, but even those are not truly independent either because they're under these umbrella corporations or entities that have to report and have regulations through the government. You shouldn't have to report anything on your children. You know, I'm sorry. There should be no reporting on your children. Right. You know, and this is explaining that to the legislators. I mean, I was there. This is my gripe on this. If they had their act together, I might say, OK, this could be helpful. But there's been more damage done to children through our government. than any single organization, family that you could, or families, you know, when they want to say, but there's child abuse. Okay, let's go through the foster care and see how much child abuse is there. Or let's go through, you know, with the children that you've illegally removed at about a million dollar a pop. And I'm just crazy. This is by design. Are you familiar with Charlotte Izzabit? I'm familiar with Dumbing Down of America. Okay. So, well, John Taylor Gatto wrote a book, Dumbing Down America, also. But this is Charlotte Izzabit. She was actually a whistleblower who worked under the Reagan administration. And her father was, her father and her grandfather were members of Skull and bones, why can't I ever put this in the right place? And she actually gave Anthony Sutton the little black book, which helped him to write this book. So she was very instrumental. She served as senior policy advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. U.S. Department of Education during the first Reagan administration, where she first blew the whistle on major technology initiative, which would control the curriculum in American classrooms. Isabel is a former school board director in Camden, Maine, and was also co-founder and research analyst of guardians of education for Maine from 1978 to 1988. It goes on, but I know she, I mean, so she, obviously she's very immersed in that world and, you know, people think Reagan was so wonderful, but he did a lot of terrible things for education during his administration. She really blew the whistle on the whole agenda. that was coming down the pike from the Carnegie papers, from the Carnegie Foundation had a bunch of papers regarding education, their future plan, the Rockefeller Foundation, UNESCO. And she goes through all of these documents and lays out the plans. And these plans have been in the works for a very long time. And it was, they wanted to, their words were to put every child into education. the the computer they had to get every child into the computer so really they want every soul but if they can capture the children then they have a much better chance of success with the future generations so they'll look up here and see if I can order that book a minute because yes and I recommend you get if you can find it get the full edition because this is actually a used book because I couldn't find uh you know any new that had uh full edition there's an abridged version I recommend getting the the appendix alone is hundreds of pages okay okay so yeah so my experience and then we can go through a little bit of the history because it is kind of interesting um this is this plan really started in the 1800s there's a lot that happened in the 1800s that that is I think there was a great reset in the 1800s I think so too yeah But yeah, so my experience at the Senate was... It was very interesting. They are not nearly as... I was prepared for corruption, which I certainly think exists. Absolutely. But I wasn't prepared for how ignorant they are. They're really not very informed. Were you able to find it? I found the small edition. I'll see if I can find it for you and I'll send you. I'll find it when I'm offline. How's that? Yeah. They were not nearly as informed and as a educated, I don't mean indoctrinated, but really educated as I would have expected. And like I said before, it's not that I think you need to have a certain level of education, but I would think you would know at least the history of America and some of the founding and Yeah. And certainly, you know, some of the machinations that are being utilized in the political system. And they were really. You know, their rights. And it's like, what are your actual rights? Not to not to show, you know, to victimize others, but to protect yourself. Mm hmm. Yes. Well, I agree. I absolutely agree. So they, one of them actually had said that I was, I heard this from several people later, they didn't know my name, but they said I was bad. And the woman, they referred to me as the woman in the black fur because they didn't know my name. But the woman in the black fur is bad and she's not allowed back. And of course- This is to the Senate? Yes. The state capitol. Yes. So they, of course, had no grounds to say that. I pay taxes, you know? And I didn't do anything that would warrant that. So I actually did call and confront him and he said, no, no, we had a great conversation and you're welcome back. And I said, well, that's great because I will be back. And so I still have some concern. But it was just they were really You know, they were polite and respectful, most of them. One of them was really interesting because we got into a whole conversation because he kept saying how they were required to educate every child and they had to mandate the education. He kept bringing up truancy. And I'm like, you had they have to track. They have to. record truancy for homeschoolers it's like how are you truant if you're home if you're alive and you're in your parents home you're not truant so yeah that's really not their business um but they said no they have to it's like truancy is all about it's all about money it's all a revenue scheme uh so this is not I don't see how that there's but he kept telling me that they have to mandate and they have to have a truancy and that this is in the constitution the state constitution And I went back and forth and I said, no, I think you're required, according to the Constitution, to provide an opportunity for education, which you do through public schools. And he said, no, no, we are required to mandate that every child is educated. I'm like, they're not the same thing. You're required to provide an opportunity, which you do already through public schools. And he kept arguing with me and I said, you know, forgive me, but I'm going to push back a little bit. I would really like to see this verbiage in this constitution to which you're referencing that you think requires you to, you know, report truancy for homeschoolers and to mandate education for all children. And so he pulls it up and, you know, he reads it. And of course, that's not what it says. It says that they need to, I'm paraphrasing, but essentially it's to provide an opportunity for children to be educated, which you do through public school. Is that a legally installed constitution or is this one, because Michigan's 1963 constitution was illegally installed. Wow. And so this is something to really look into is we've had I think we've had three constitutions. We've had at least three. And the last one was absolutely, absolutely unlawfully put in place because they didn't have the required. votes from the population of voters. And so they passed it anyway, but it did not pass muster of what it would take to install a constitution. So even when you look at the laws, the laws, you have to go back further. They can't change the constitution. They're not able to change the basics of the constitution. We can go back to the mid-1800s to see where they really got off the rails. Yeah. And I think that it needs to go all the way back before the 16th Amendment and nullify it all. Yeah. So I just went to Chrisanne Hall's lecture on nullification. It was fantastic. Oh, really? Where can I find it? She did it in Mount Juliet. Yeah. They tape it? What? I don't know if they taped it. I'll look. It's on her website, like the flyer for it's on her website. So yeah, so you can look into that. I like her. She's an incredible educator. Yeah, she's phenomenal. Yeah, she's a force. She's powerful. Yeah, it was a really, really great experience. I guess it was a seminar, but yeah, she did a really great job. But yeah. So I, then, and then, so after, you know, I said, well, that's not what it says. And then he was such a coward. He says, oh, I, well, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I have to call my grandson back. Yeah. Like he kicks us out basically. So that was interesting. And then there was. Pathetic is the word for it. What? Pathetic is the word for it. It was. And then there was another meeting where there were... there were two, like they didn't want to meet alone. So two of them, you know, that we met with, and then another one came in at the very end. And that was interesting, but yeah, but they accused me of using big words that they didn't understand. No, you, you're big words. You've got to talk in small words, short sentences, monosyllabic. Yeah. Yeah. So that was very interesting. And, you know, I was very like when they were like, well, we don't know what, you know, the Hegelian dialectic is. I said, no problem. Let me give you a really, you know, we don't need to do a big history lesson. We'll just do a really brief rundown. And, you know, I'm thinking this would be relevant and something they'd be interested in understanding, you know. And so I did. And they were like, you're using a lot of terms. We don't know any of this. And I said, well, it's kind of relevant what's going on today. Maybe you should get educated then. I was like, okay, I'm trying to understand here. I may not know it all, but nobody has all the knowledge in the world. That's why we talk to each other and help each other understand things. exactly and I was like I can give you resources you can go read for yourselves like this is you know I'm not the expert I'm just sharing knowledge I think is very relevant right now because they they have this mindset the way they look at it I really think it would behoove us to have a democrat governor and a republican legislator because they're so trapped in this You know, in the dialectic, they're just trapped in the wizard circle. They think and they kept telling me, they said, well, the Democrats are the bad guys. We're the good guys. So, you know, well, Governor Lee is good. He put forth a bill and he's a Republican. He's good. And I said to them, I, with all due respect, I really don't care whether it has an R or D in front of it. If you're growing the government, if you're limiting our rights, if you're restricting parental rights and you're expanding government spending and increasing taxes, I'm not in favor of it. I don't care what the bill is. The political parties are the part of the problem. They are absolutely central to why we have lost. They're a critical step in why we're losing this nation. It's the political parties. They're working together. They're trying to help each other stay in power. So they pass the ball back and forth, 49-51, 49-51, so that they stay in place and people work themselves up the ladder of approval in the cult system. Yeah. Well, George Washington warned us against it. So did Adams. And we just kind of want to jump on because it's the lazy way out to just like, oh, he's got an R, he's got a D. I guess I'm going to vote that way. Yep. Yeah, so it was an interesting experience. And then in that meeting, because I was trying to explain that, you know, it's not really choice. They already have choice. What you're trying to do is you're now going to have strings attached to the kids who take this money. And, you know, so then... picky comes in at like the very end of the meeting and pretty much like waltzes in and kind of takes over. Now he hasn't heard anything that's gone on previously and he acts like he knows everything. And then he said, oh, so you're not happy with this bill because you think homeschoolers are going to have strings attached. Well, what if we take the homeschoolers out of it? And he said, the independent homeschoolers at first. And I said, well, of course you take the independent homeschoolers out. They're already under the government's purview. So, you know, it would be double dipping. Like you, obviously they're not going to be included. And he said, okay, so what, what are you upset about? And, you know, a lot of the parents were saying, well, we, we are in private schools or in, uh, under the umbrella school, the category four, we don't want this. And he said, OK, well, if I take this out, them out of it, out of the bill, then are you satisfied? And we we said, no, we're not satisfied, because then that means that the parents who are homeschooling or private school or private schooling, you know, truly private, not the private public partnership schools, but the really independent, they're now paying taxes towards this bill and then they reap no rewards from it. So they said, no, we object the bill altogether. And this is the other thing. This is the game they play. They do this thing called caption bills. And I learned this with the NACs also, and they call it a placeholder. It's not a placeholder. It's a stall tactic and it's a bait and switch tactic. So they basically put just like a little paragraph. Okay, there will, it doesn't say much. It just says there will be a bill regarding this topic here. And then what they do is they tell us, well, we haven't seen the bill. We don't have the verbiage. So we really can't say whether we'll vote yay or nay. And, you know, we really can't have this conversation because nobody's seen the wording. And what I said over and over again, and most of the people I was with said, we don't care about the wording. We reject the premise. We reject what this bill stands for. We don't care what the words you use are. We reject it altogether. But that's the game they play. They keep saying, well, we can't say that. We don't know what's in it. So then following my trip to the Capitol, I went to this town hall meeting. And of course, this piggy was there again. And he says how somebody actually asked, like, how long will we have? Because it's a caption bill. And you keep saying we don't have the verbiage. So when will the public have the verbiage? And will they have ample time to review it? And so he says, he promises that there will be at least seven days to review the bill. And he says, but don't worry. I mean, it's probably going to be at least a 38 page bill, but I can break it down for you in 15 minutes. You don't even need seven days. This is the guy who was just before that telling us how, you know, he went to college and played like football and baseball and he was definitely not the smartest guy in his class. But somehow he can read 38 pages and break it down for us in 15 minutes. I feel really confident about that. I don't know about you, but it would take me more than 15 minutes to read 38 pages, especially of language I really want to digest, you know, something that's a, where they're going to be a little bit cryptic and it might be, you want to catch every word and really discern it. I don't think I could read and digest and break it down in 15 minutes, but somehow he can, no problem. We should just not worry. but here we are and then we have this they're hearing it tuesday today and of course he's going to tell you what's good for you because we are the best we're the experts because we're sitting in the government and meanwhile as a few days ago there was still no bill for the public to view And yet, of course, the problem is reformed because we've got 2000 bills in Michigan that go through a year approximately. And I really think what we need to do is we need to limit the scope. It can be it has to be related to the topic on there. They can't hide things. It's got to have a limited form. Everyone in in the government needs to that in the legislature needs to sit through the entire reading. If they get up to get a cup of coffee, they're disqualified for voting on it. And and I mean, there's so many things and they've got to understand what they're voting for. And yeah, they do. I'm sorry, go on, yeah. If they're getting money from any of these sources that are backing this or have any lobbying involved in it, they're done. They've just disqualified themselves or disqualified themselves. I agree. And what they do is they bombard with all of these, like, distracting bills. So Ms. Kapicki, who, you know, promised that we would have seven days, but don't worry because he can break down in 15 minutes. We don't even need seven days. You know, no problem. But meanwhile, five days before, we still had no bill to view. So he lied. He lied. But not only that, the same guy had presented a bill to make it illegal to purchase, to sell cold beer. And it was supposed to go into, it got put on ice, fortunately. Why did they want that one? I don't know the reasoning behind it, but I feel like it's like, okay, he's getting a lot of flack for the voucher bill. And so now he puts forth some total distraction. Like, okay, we're going to focus on the beer. It's ridiculous. I don't know what it is. I think maybe to discourage people from buying a beer and then drinking it immediately and driving. I don't know. It's dumb is what it is. And they were supposed to go into effect right before July 4th, July 1st. It was supposed to go into effect. I'm like... Oh, this is going to go over really well with businesses. I mean, it's, it's really stupid, but that got, it got, it got put on ice, you know? So, yeah. So that one's done, but. It's ridiculous. These people are ridiculous. They're totally ridiculous. The amount of distraction out there and keeping people from focusing on what's really important is. Exactly. It's, it's absurd. It's just like, let's just run to one headline after another, after another, and never be able to get a, get a lock on what's actually going on. You know, that's what I see a lot of. Totally. Yeah. So I started going in through the history of how we got here. And Charlotte, actually, one of the big things she really did focus on was school choice, because in their own documents, they talked about how that was the school choice agenda was part of the plan to get every child into the computer so they could all be under the government system because they want control of every single child, not just the ones who are in the public school system. And obviously the public school system, they did a really good job of indoctrinating and getting control, really, just to make them wards of the state. Because once they're in the school system, they're definitely wards of the state. We've discussed this. They're wards of the state if your parents had a... a state license, and then you had children within. So they come from every angle. And it was interesting, one of the senators, I brought that up because somebody had said, well, they're not supposed to be wards of the state. And I said, well, if you had a state license, then technically they already are. And she said, actually, that's true. I proposed a bill. She proposed a bill in 2015 to ban the marriage licenses. It didn't get passed, but she did propose it. She showed it to me. I was like, oh my gosh, that's amazing. It's totally, there is no purview for that. That is all about controls. It just makes the state, the government, the executor. But yeah, so they started this agenda that it comes out of the Prussian model of education. And this Prussian model was essentially started after the Battle of Jena and the Napoleonic Wars, which was around 1807, they lost the battle and they lost the battle because the soldiers rebelled. So they decided they had to eviscerate critical thinking so that they could have what they call, and the translation would be, they wanted to breed mindless, obedient soldiers. And so they created this three-tier Prussian model. And that's what it was called, the Prussian model of education. And this got exported to the United States. And it got exported to the United States through what they call the, uh, the American, the, the Vontian Americanization of education. And it, the other term would be the Leipzig connection. Leipzig connection is a really great book. It's like a short, I think 155 page. I don't have it with me, but it's a class and Leone and both Anthony Sutton and sorry, why can't I ever? Find the camera. Anthony Sutton and several others, Charlotte, they've used that to reference the Leipzig connection. And how, so it was Wilhelm Wundt, who was known as kind of the father of psychology. And he gave the first PhDs. He didn't have a PhD himself. He started the PhD program. which I consider to be the pinnacle of indoctrination. But he was training them at Leipzig University in Germany. And he trained people like Pavlov, those all centered around this very Skinnerian type of training and methodology. And people like G. Stanley Hall. G. Stanley Hall was a mentor to John Dewey. And John Dewey was very instrumental in bringing this education model to the United States. One of the other pretty famous ones would be William James. And he was known as the father of American psychology. And he had one of the first PhDs as well. And so Wilhelm Wundt's grandfather actually was Christian Carl Casimir Wundt. Yeah, it's a mouthful. But Carl Christian Rathbunt was a member of the Illuminati. His name was Raphael in the Illuminati. And so then Wundt starts this whole Leipzig connection. And I feel like that is relevant because a lot of the kind of tenets, the belief system, are very much shared with a lot of the writings you see in Weishaupt. So he does this Leipzig Connection, and he trains people like G. Stanley Hall, who mentors John Dewey, Pavlov, who creates this, you know, the Pavlovian response, which is very much what we see in the education system today, and William James, and there were several others. And So he trains all of them. And then there's a connection with Skull and Bones, with all of these members. And so they really tried to bring this over to control the education system. And what's really important to understand is that they're all Hegelians. And Hegel, in typical Hegelianism, dialectical faction, there were left Hegelians, there were right Hegelians. The right Hegelians were responsible for Prussian militarism, the rise of Nazism. And we see this in education. This is where like ringing the bell comes from to switch classes, the very structured timeframe, because this was all to breed obedience and compliance. So they modeled it after a very militarized type of system. And then the left Hegelians, you know, for the promotions of social scientism, these are people like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. And I've outlined, I believe before with you, the Illuminati roots of Karl Marx. You know, he was, there was the, the Illuminati was in the late 1700s. They technically got shut down. But the reason we know so much about them is because the documents got leaked to the Bavarian government. And then there were several books written from some insiders, like Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robeson, which was published in 1798. And then there was another one the same year, which was called Code of the Illuminati. And Proofs of a Conspiracy was used by george washington to warn the public uh about the infiltration of the illuminati and the masons and the uh proofs of the conspiracy was actually used by uh thomas jefferson to warn the american people and they so when it got shut down there were several offshoots uh you know they went underground and they created offshoots and the one of the first ones was called the uh League of the Outlaws. And then from there, they created another offshoot. It was called the League of the Just, which would be like League of Just Men. And I think of them kind of as like the, you know, predecessors, today's modern social justice warriors. And it was helmed by Marx and Engels. And then from there, they started the Communist League. And It was Engels who helmed that one. And he was, you know, he wrote a manifesto for it. And he used Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati manifesto, as well as Clinton Roosevelt's book, which was called The Science of Government Founded on Natural Law. And He was related to President Roosevelt, but they used that book, those two as kind of the, you know, models to create this communist manifesto for the Communist League. And he took those notes and then Marx's name actually wasn't even on it for years. What they did was they did a whole publicity campaign for Karl Marx and they had him write several pamphlets and journals and articles along similar themes and, you know, did a publicity campaign for him, and then they added his name to the Communist Manifesto. But it has been, you know, he got a lot of flack for being a plagiarist, essentially, because they were plagiarizing from Adam Weishaupt and Clinton Roosevelt. He got flack for being a plagiarist on his other works as well. But those two really were derived very strongly from, and when you look at, it was, I'm what was his name, Emmanuel, I have to look up his last name, but he was a doctor. He wrote a great book actually on the natural treatments of glaucoma also. And he wrote a book that takes the two, takes the Illuminati Manifesto from Weishaupt as well as Clinton Roosevelt's book, and it puts them side by side and shows you how Karl Marx adapted those. So that kind of gives you a bit of the roots. But ultimately, whether it's left or right Hegelianism, The ultimate thesis of Hegelianism is that the state is all powerful. You know, for Hegel, the state equal God. And so they, he believed, Hegel actually believed that there was no freedom for the individual unless he was subservient to the state. That's where freedom was derived. was from this duty to the state. And so that's really important to know when you're thinking about whether, because there were a group that really took Hegelianism to create political theory, and then there were the Hegelians who, like Wundt and Dewey, who applied it to education. So they have roots that go to schools like John Hopkins. Obviously, Yale was skull and bones. let me see if I can go back and find some of the, they, and their intention was to dumb people down essentially to create, you know, obedience. Yes. Um, and later really to, uh, this is another really great resource. It's really all about the, um, it's my friend, John Klesik, who is phenomenal. And, uh, he has school world order, the technocratic globalization of corporatized education. So, you know, and the, in those days they called it the, you know, cog in the machine. Like they, they wanted to create somebody who was going to be part of a global workforce. They didn't use those words, you know, back in the 1800s, but the Carnegie documents, uh, what was it? It was, uh, Something for recommendations, conclusions and recommendations. That was what the title of this document was. And they talk about creating a global workforce and that that was the purpose of education. And so this is all coming through from organizations like UNESCO. It's a very globalized initiative, but they're implementing it and executing it through the local apparatus. And look at how they've continued to push younger and younger children to be inserted into the system. you know, Head Start and all of those things to get them away from their parents. And, you know, you don't know who's talking to your kids at any point in time if you're not there. And it should be a little more disturbing, I think, to people than what they've just become used to. You know, anything that goes in the wrong direction, it's very rare that it all happens in one big explosion of evil. It's usually a little bit at a time. It's incremental. The Fabian socialists, yep. Yeah, that's what they do. It's like the frog in the boiling pot. You put a frog in water and turn the heat on, and they won't even know they're boiling until they're dead. Their mascot is the tortoise, and it's for the incrementalism. The Fabian socialists is the tortoise. Their coat of arms is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Well, that should be a disturbing fact right there. I know. I told them this, and they were like, we don't know who the Fabians are. I don't know why you're telling us this. And I was like, because they're kind of running everything. So I think you should probably care. You don't have to know. This is something that I've heard so many years. It's like, don't study Satan. Just study God and what he does. You know, you don't want to look into evil. Just study the good stuff. And that's enough. I'm going to tell you right now, I don't know. I think all of us should be studying everything and making informed decisions and not being afraid. You know, that's that's that fear creeping in even to even to our, you know, our religious beliefs. uh, institutions and areas. So I'm, I'm kind of, uh, questioning, uh, I question everything. All right. It doesn't, there's not one religion that gets a pass and I know you're Jewish and, and I'm Christian and I can, I consider them both equally in, uh, in effect, uh, apostate at this point in time, same thing. There, there, there's so much apostasy. Yeah. Institutional capture. I mean, the institutional capture, uh, And Jesus, Jesus talked about that, that, that the church would be apostate and that they would be the first ones to be rigged over the coals there, you know, for, for their, for their, you know, for their, um, uh, attacks against God himself. And, and it's like, it's like, you know, I think everything should be questioned. I don't mind being questioned. I know you don't mind being questioned and, and I'm not going to pull out the, the, you know, you're, you're misogynist or you don't like Christians or you don't like anything. Question away. You got to question everything and everything. And if they can't stand up to the questioning, why? What are they hiding? What are they trying to prove as a protected group of people? If you can't stand up to questioning from anyone, I mean, let's go back to the fact that here we're all Americans globally. We're all God's children and everyone should be able to be questioned and stand up to the questioning. And if you can't, then we have a problem. Yeah. I couldn't agree more. Um, Yeah. Supported by terrorist organizations that that say, oh, you can't talk this way about our people. What is our people? Tell me how you've gotten to the point of being us against them as human beings. Right. It's not OK. No, it's definitely not OK. I was going to read a quote and see if I can find it. Let me see if I can pull it up. I know it's. And just so everybody out there knows, my head is also spinning a little bit with all of the names that are out there. I'm familiar with some of them, but there's a lot of information that gets passed here when Courtney's on and when some of my guests are on, like John and Courtney, because they are so knowledgeable. Those are the people I want to hang out with. I want to be the dumbest one in the room always, because that means that we have people that have specializations in areas that they are experts on and they know like everything. And I tell you, I just appreciate so much all the time and study that you put into this in the social engineering and the tearing down of America through the channels of changing norms and making things that are not okay acceptable and where that happened and who brought it in and what was their goal. The goal is almost always for power and money. You can always go back to power and money over other people. Well, I will say that that's the result. But I think sometimes that's the case. There are people who really, so when you look at like these Hegelians, they really do believe the state is God. So I caution against it. Yes, there are definitely people who are just vying for power and money. But there are people who, it's really about their worldview. And I happen to disagree with their worldview. I don't think that the state is God. And, you know, this is where you get, like, there are people who subscribe to a Luciferian worldview who don't necessarily seem like bad people. And it's because, in my opinion, I think they've been deceived. But they've been led to believe that, you know, there's a, they believe in it, they subscribe to a Gnostic view of the world that somehow... This is the path. Yeah, exactly. And they think that they're, they think they're really doing the right thing. And so I just, I caution against, it's not everybody who, you know, believes this way or conducts, you know, executes these kinds of, and abets these plans is not necessarily intentionally coming from an evil place. They might really believe it. They might really think they're doing the right thing. I don't agree with them, but you know, that really does happen. We need to call it out because really our battle is with principalities and powers. So have they been captured? Are they a captured asset of evil? And that's a likely outcome from a lot of it, just like people in the government who have been coerced, threatened, and intimidated. Are they actually in sort, there's a lot of prisons that are out there. Yes. Not every prison has actual grapes on the windows. There are many of them, but those are all things that we need to tear down. Yes. So Hegel was very heavily influenced by Johann Gottlieb Ficke. And he was a member of the Illuminati, actually. But Ficke is the one who took the very obvious notion of the Hegelian dialectic being a thesis, antithesis, synthesis. He derived that from his interpretation of Kant. Hegel actually said it was the, you know, abstract negative concrete. And I always talk about that, even though people don't necessarily think that it's all that relevant. But I think it really is, because the negative is, it really translates to sublation. The word in German is afheben. And afheben is an oxymoronic term. It means to lift up and preserve while simultaneously tearing down and canceling. And this, of course, where we got the Frankfurt School's notion of afheben to culture, which destroyed the culture. also known as cancel culture, which I don't think needs any kind of explanation today. But I want to read. Let's read something. I'm looking at the clock because I've got to go to another interview here in a little bit. And I love what you have to say. So let's go ahead and finish that part up. And then maybe we can pick this up next week again, because I learned so much from you. It's amazing. I know everybody does too. Thank you. all right I'll just read these two quotes from fika because they kind of set the tone um he initially created the concept of the league nations actually in german it was called volker bron boker bond um I'm sure I butchered the pronunciation of that. But I'll read these two quotes from him. He wrote a book called A Vocation of Man. So this is this idea of man being like what Lucius Trust now calls world servers. But this is what he says. Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking. And who was that? Joan Gottlieb Ficke, who was one of the primary influences of Hegel. And Hegel is who influenced Wilhelm Wundt and indirectly John Dewey, but directly as well. but because he was a Wundtian and that was the foundation for Wundt. This is the other one, the other quote, he says, as this federation, this is regarding the Volker Wundt, which is kind of a predecessor to the concept of the League of Nations. He says, as this federation spreads further and gradually embraces the whole earth, a perpetual peace begins, the only lawful relation among states. So, and this was in his book, Declaration of Interdependence, Education for a Global Community. So yeah, we can continue this, but I just think that's important for people to understand that this concept of a global citizen starts back in the 1800s. And that's really what we're seeing now in the education system and all of this legislature regarding education and this attack on homeschooling. It's because they're trying to create global citizens. You know, back then they had different terms for it, but now that's what it is. And you're going to see. What? Yeah, those two. Yeah. Wow. Wow. You know, out of all of us, that's what they want all of us to be, just little obedient drones. They do. Yes. That's what it is. That's why we need to question everything and resist when they start trying to take our rights away. It's our duty to continue to resist and also to defend and protect those around us. Yes, noncompliance becomes our duty. Act of patriotism right now. Well, thank you so much. And let's say a quick prayer here. And I appreciate you being on. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Courtney and John and all those wonderful people that have so much knowledge and they have put their time into educating themselves and then sharing it with each and every one of us so that we can honestly know what's going on. And we're just so thankful for everyone out there and the efforts that they put into their lives and their families and those around them. We ask that you confuse all the plans of the enemy to further encroach on our rights and as well as taking our children captive, we ask that you would confuse all of their plans and that you would continue to help lead us through the murky waters that we're kind of treading in right now in order to truly free up America as the founding fathers had envisioned it, which was based on the Bible, Old Testament Bible, and how to run a society. We are so grateful that you've given us this guidance and that you brought us together to defend and protect each other. The rights that you've given us, rights came from you. This is your sandbox. And we're willing to follow the rules that you put in place and also follow your lead. If you tell us or you ask us to do something, we know that you will enable us every step of the way. And we give you total acknowledgement that you're in charge here. We want to follow you. and we were willing to do whatever it is that you ask us to do. And by your strength, your leading, and your provision, we will accomplish whatever goal you have in mind for us. Thank you so much for everyone that's out there. Give everybody a strong hug from you, God, and let them know that they're loved and that you're with them every step of the way. Help us keep our eyes on you. You've been a wonderful friend to us, and we want to be a friend to you. We love you. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. There you go. So you have a great day today. And here we're going to go to because I'm the best non-conceder who has ever not conceded in the history of the world here. So I'm not conceding to liars and thieves. It's the election of 2020 or 2022 here. So at any rate, enjoy your day. God bless you. God bless all those people you love and God bless America. Make it a great day. You too. Here and here. So we'll see you next Tuesday. Okay. All right. Bye. Bye guys. We'll be on with Liberty essentials tomorrow.