Published July 21, 2025, 9:03 a.m.
9am Vicky Davis Technocratic Communism The United Nations as an organization is world communism. The strategy to impose world communism on the people of the United States (and the other countries in this hemisphere) has been economic rather than military as the people were led to believe it would be. It's our own leaders who were the Pied Pipers leading us to this demise of the U.S. I'm working on a timeline that shows the who, when and what. 10am Daniel Richard - Daniel Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire has brought a case against the state, which claims that N.H. election laws have been illegally altered by the executive and legislative branches of the state government over the years, without the consent of the voters, thereby making the legislature’s actions unconstitutional. On Monday, October 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on their own initiative, scheduled oral arguments for November 29th, 2023 at 9am, in a highly-anticipated election law case of Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al. involving the executive and legislature branches of government repeatedly violating the voting rights of Mr. Richard, and the people of this State, by altering the mandatory election provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire established by the people by legislative fiat. This case poses the following questions. Who is qualified to voter in New Hampshire? Who is qualified to vote absentee in this State? Who is required to “sort,” “count” and certify the votes in the towns and cities? Are voting machines constitutional in N.H? Can the legislature delegate its law-making power under the State and U.S. Constitutions to an unelected body of bureaucrats (the NH Ballot Law Commission) to make election laws (including voting machine laws), and the ability to suspend State and Federal election laws? The use of vote tabulation equipment to conceal the counting of un-verified and uncertified absentee ballots and the illegal certification of the elections results. X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1OyKALWwvbgxb Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1410359906743470 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6wgz8m-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-7252025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richar.html https://rumble.com/v6wgzdu-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-7212025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richar.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-07-21-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richard-pro-se:2 BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, Vicky Davis, Daniel Richard
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It's the twenty first day of July twenty twenty five and welcome to our show. Today we're going to be talking with Vicki Davis with the Technocratic Tyranny, as well as Daniel Richard at ten o'clock talking about pro se. I had to let you guys know that I had a great weekend this weekend and I wrote a report on the way that Byron Township has, in fact, broken the law. Now, why this is so important is because I think that if everyone got in the game and held their public functionaries to a standard, we could reverse this very quickly. But most people don't know how to do that. And I didn't either. OK, just to be real honest and transparent about this. It's a learning curve for all of us. We are in uncharted waters and trying to unravel what this these globalist communists have done to the entire world. But you know what? We're getting there, which is amazing. How do you tackle a problem or how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time, right? So that's the direction that we're going in. We're learning. All of us are learning together. The meeting I had last night at the barn was wonderful. There were so many amazing patriots there that are willing to stand for our rights. realizing that our townships are not following any of the rules that they're supposed to be. Not one of them is at this point in time. So in my opinion, and that is my opinion, because they're not going back to fundamental law and the policies that are aligned with the Constitution, which is protecting our rights. They keep attacking our rights and taking more and more of them away and layering ordinances, laws, which aren't really even laws, most of it's pretended, on top of each other. Everyone's so confused, they don't even know which direction to go in. Well, guess what? Brandenburg News Network and myself and everyone who is here is committed to bringing the truth forward. And with that said, I'll bring up my truth-telling buddy, Vicki Davison. How are you doing this morning, Vicki? Oh, fine. Thank you. And it's good that you started with that topic, because what they're doing is they've been dismantling our nation state. And along with the nation state, obviously, that starts with the federal government going right on down to your local community, which is why you have a council. that's violating the law, violating your constitutional rights. It's because they have been dismantling our country, our body of laws. And the reason why I know that is because I've studied the changes to the government going even back to the United Nations, okay? This all has to do with globalization of government. Well, you can't have a body like the United Nations that is trying to stand up as a global governing system while you have a nation state that has its own framework, the Constitution, and our own body of laws. And so- They've been breaking down our legal structures. Actually, it was Ronald Reagan that started deregulation of corporations in our country. And with deregulation, of course, eventually it becomes like the wild, wild west. And that's what happened to the stock market. They deregulated, deregulated insurance, deregulated banking. um but they sure are regulating us I mean you know it's like they they have flipped it and turned us into their subjects which it really is when you look at an eighty five percent tax tax rate that most of us are under and when I say that people are saying no we're not brandon bergen I'm saying yes we are guys because start adding up all the discretionary taxes and fees And it's not just income tax. Income tax is one of them that it should be absolutely illegal the way they're working it. You can only tax gain and commerce. But they put us all into commerce instead of... defending us within the Republic. And all of their actions are leading to collectivism, collectivism, the power going to the top and leaving us at the bottom is just someone to serve them. It's totally flipped. Yes. And which brings me to a really important video that everybody should watch. James Corbett published it a few days ago, and it's called Algocracy. I like that term. Yeah, government for the new world order. And by algocracy, what he means is rule by algorithm. Well, let's bring this up, and tell me if you can hear this or not. Sometimes that sound will get weird on me, but let's see. We'll just watch a little bit of it. and which is, if you thought social media censorship was bad, this has the potential to be a thousand times worse. And the reason is, social media is important, but at the end of the day, it's quote, just people talking to each other. AI is going to be the control layer on everything. Right. So AI is going to be the control layer on how your kids learn at school. It's going to be the control layer on who gets loans. It's going to be the control layer on does your house open when you come to the front door? It's going to be the control layer on everything. Right. And so if that gets wired into the political system the way that the banks did and the way that social media did, like we are in for a very bad future. And that's a big thing that we've been trying to prevent is to keep that from happening. Welcome back, friends. Welcome back to The Corporate Report. I'm James Corbett of corporatereport.com coming to you as always from the sunny climes of western Japan here in March of two thousand twenty five with episode four hundred and seventy three of The Corporate Report podcast. Algocracy. I love I love James Corbett. He's done so many good videos, just the short ones. I think the first one that really got my attention was nine eleven. in five minutes. And it just pretty much outlined how absurd their lies are. Their lies are so absurd. If you just stop and critically think just for a few minutes, you'll get it figured out. Would you like to expand on what he's talking about? Yes. And when they made the decision to open our nation's telecommunications system to the public, you know, internet for everybody, they began redesigning our government to exploit the telecommunications, the communications capabilities of the communications system. You could say it began in nineteen eighty four when they filed that a lawsuit against AT&T, broke up AT&T and created the baby bells, which there were many, many good things about doing that. But it created the opportunity to create this computer-led new world order of control. You have a corporation, you know, I don't know what you do with your railroad stuff, but you have a corporate structure on top and that corporate structure runs everything. They make the decisions on everything, which is fine for a corporation. But when you're talking about government, Having a corporate structure for government, it's a totalitarian system. It's a freaking, you know, and especially when they are partnered with corporations, because the government didn't have the authority under the Constitution or anything else to build a corporate management structure over our government. So what they did is have corporations partner with government to build out the big systems. Well, so our government is now in partnership with these corporations with a corporate mindset of control. Okay. And so one of the things that's most important to me about what James Corbett is talking about is our healthcare system. It began in. With our new world order president. George H.W. Bush. And. The Bush crime syndicate. Of which DeSantis and some other people. Are involved in. And people can't seem to see past the mask. And the charade. Yeah. Well the first two systems. That he kicked off. You know for development. Was health and education. The other one was enterprise of the Americas to open our border to Mexico. And so, well, the Americas, that's Mexico and Canada. That was really, well, the La Paz Treaty in in with Mexico, that was the first one. Then the Free Trade Agreement with Canada. in about nineteen eighty six. And then Enterprise of the Americas unleashed corporations to take full advantage of the Americas. And at that point, it was the beginning of the end for the United States as a nation state. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten in office, the world of hurt we would be in right now? I can't even imagine it. You know, when I saw President Trump get in, I actually was like, wow, I can actually get behind this a little. You know, I can get behind this guy because he was talking. the things that, that made sense to me. And I, and I really do think, you know, I I'm on, I'm probably in a minority of people, but I really do think that president Trump is the bait for the good guys that are out there to bait people in, to see how they're going to react, whether it's because he throws crazy stuff out there. I'm going to tell you what, and I think he's hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. We're going to take over Greenland. Well, that's part of the Americas. That is no joke. I think it's funny. It's no joke. I think he's hilarious. I really do. But what it also has done is given us time to pause as a nation a little bit and feel the safety of having someone who is kind of a... an anomaly in politics and see what's really going on to think things through, to get educated, to explore topics like what we're doing right now. Quite honestly, if it hadn't been for President Trump, I would not have been doing this at all. I wouldn't be looking into it, which is I think what most of this is about is giving the nation back to the people means we got to know what the heck's going on. We've been blinded and brainwashed for so many years. And what I've seen is a a resurgence of people turning to God, turning to figuring out what the law is, trying to see what's wrong, seeing that something doesn't make sense, and actually getting in the game, realizing what we lost or what we may have never had. Well, I'll tell you, the U.S. Senate has been selling us out since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed. You know, when the Constitution was written, the states selected the senators. No direct vote for Senate or president. Well, they changed it so that the people elect senators like they do the House of Representatives. Right. And that's what I mean. There was supposed to be no direct vote for the Senate. as well as the president, supposed to go through the representatives. That's the form of a republic. And I think that this is another thing that we're learning is that they're using that word democracy. We're not a democracy. Well, we kind of are now because they've overlaid the republic with it. But we were not supposed to be a democracy, which is the most unstable form of government. And it's mob rule. Right. Well, they've used the Senate to sell out our country. The Senate votes on international agreements and treaties. We're in the United Nations because the Senate voted for it. Please elaborate on that topic, because this is important. We need to know this. Yeah, well, They voted to create the United Nations, which originally was, as I understand it, was supposed to have the nations come together and resolve problems and that kind of stuff. But over time, it's become clear that the idea was ultimately for the United Nations organization to basically take over as a world governing system. The way they've done this is through regionalism, essentially, which means eliminating nation states and implementing a regional governing structure. There's no provision in our constitution for regions. Right? It's only states. And the states created the counties, and that's the way our government is supposed to work. But the United Nations has been overlaying on the top of our government these regional structures. So we have regionalism. The Americas is a regional structure. The European Union is a regional structure, right? And of course, China goes so far back. I mean, they've always been an empire. And Russia was the same way. Russia was an empire. And so basically, they've returned us to a status of an empire. And the name of our empire is the Americas. And, you know, we're the strongest nation in the America's empire. So the U S leads it, but they don't lead it for our benefit. Not at all. Not even a little bit. This is interesting. I was supposed to go to Instagram this morning and they, came up with a little thing that says, Oh, it does say we're live. So hi to everybody on Instagram. I got to figure out how to get to it because they left me some messages and I can't get to my life live stream. Let's see what's going on here. But yeah, it's, it's, it's a crazy, it definitely is a crazy time to, uh, well, this is odd. It says we're live, but I'm not sure where this is a new thing for me. So like, like I said, we're learning as we go. Hmm. Interesting. So anyhow, back to the ranch here. I think that this is another topic I wanted to talk about because I had a meeting at my barn last night. And the problem that we're attacking is the township is not following any, even their pretended procedure, they're not following it. And it came up that, well, what about the ordinances for blah, blah, blah. Well, I wrote this report, and I proved that they have no immunity. The people in the government proved it. And they've got all this law in here. It's a decent-sized little report. I'd like to talk about that, too, about how not only regionally, but how they've screwed us up in the townships. Because one of the people that I had on the show a while back, Renita, they were fighting something up in Midland, a bond initiative. It was absurd how much money they were asking for and putting on the backs of the taxpayers. Unbelievable, right? Well, they defeated it in an election. And it turns out that they're not listening to it at all. Not at all. And so she's like, what do we do? I'm like, well, probably the same thing that we're going to do here in Byron Township, which is hold them accountable. We're going to give them one shot to write this. And if that doesn't happen, then I think it's time to to pay for them to death. And you know what I mean? It's like, it's like they've been using lawfare on the rest of us. I think we need to get really good at using lawfare in order to, in order to hold them accountable. Law only works if the law is honored. Right. And if they, if it's not honored, then you have to go after them personally in a court of law. I'm not saying grab your torches and pitchforks. That's the last thing that we would want to see happen. But we are going to have to hold them accountable. And that is using the same weapons they've been using against us. Use lawfare. Just get better at it. I've got a couple of pro se cases that are filed. And honestly, they don't know how to handle this. They don't know how to deal with it. So I'm seeing their deficits in how they handle any of the cases. I honestly think they're running it through AI and they're not checking it. And they lied to the court, too. In both cases, they said they sent they attached it or they put it on my files. No, they didn't. And I've got the proof to prove they never did it. sent it through the mail so they could lie about the fact that it was coming through my files and it was delivered when it was never delivered and I can prove it. I'm pretty sure that a judge is going to look at that unless they're in bed with them and say, ah, this is not okay in any way, shape or form because they lied to the court. And it's over and over and over again. Yeah. I wouldn't count on the judge, actually, because the judges know better than just about anyone else how our laws are being decayed in the same way that our national borders are. And so, I mean, we have corruption amongst our judges and our courts, which is a big part of our problem. And you can check what I'm saying by looking at global cities. What's a global city? What the hell is a global city? It's a city that is within a region, which is the overlay of our American government, right? It's a complete deconstruction of our nation state. And so nothing that you understand about America as you were growing up, as I was growing up, is true anymore because they have been decaying the nation state. And this all goes back to the open telecommunications system, the internet, when they decided to do global systems meaning that and and it was the um g-seven the gang of seven nations that decided to do global systems which means integrated internet-based systems And so since that was an international thing, who was selected to oversee that process? The freaking CIA. Yeah, there's a surprise for you. Right. And so since it involved, the CIA spun off a venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel, right? Have you heard of In-Q-Tel? Oh, yeah. They seem to be behind everything. They are. They are. And they're the ones that spun off and basically redesigned Silicon Valley to be the location where global systems were developed. That's where you get Google, you know? So anyway, the systems that they came up with, first they nationalized systems. And this one is my really, really big hot button issue, is the nationalized medical records and the global health system. They've turned everybody in this country into a freaking lab rat for genetic research. That's the bottom line of the whole thing. Have you ever seen the videos of World War II and the baby factories that they had? No. Oh, it's like disturbing beyond all belief. I'm going to try to restart. I'm not trying to be distracted, but I am right now. I'm trying to get Instagram up and I'm seeing that it's running in one spot, but it's not in another. So because this is how it works, guys. It's like, how do I say it? Real news for real people by real people at the kitchen table is what we have here. And sometimes things don't go exactly wrong. So I'm going to try to restart this with a new Instagram. Here we go. Because it said it's like, let's see if we can get this going. Just bear with me just a second. Sorry. I want to see if we can upgrade, update this and see if that works. All right. Here we go. See if that works. We'll see if it actually shows. It actually shows what we're doing. this is this is odd okay let me try this again sorry but I just want to see this I've got a new tool here and and I it's annoying me that it's not working so anyhow you want to continue on here I'm gonna try to fix this problem and see if we can we can get it moving here yeah post this in the chat so you can look at it. But they integrated or made it possible for our agencies of government and in particular are like the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence to work with their counterparts in other countries. Well, you can't serve two masters. So our intelligence agencies, CIA, who do they work for? Do they work for the global system or do they work for the United States? And my answer is they work for the global system because they're the ones that initiated the global systems. So I mean, and the only way you see this stuff is if you study it from the bottom up, which is what I did because I had no clue whatsoever that any of this was going on when I started researching. And the system that I started researching was our education system. And the reason that I did that is because Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to David Rockefeller regarding basically creating a national system of worker management, essentially. It was a trading system so that they could balance foreign inputs, foreign workers with domestic workers, basically control the labor market of the United States. Well, that's not an American form of government. I dare anybody to convince me that that is an American form of government where we have the government managing the labor market. And then look at their language that they have now with the public-private partnerships. There is no difference at this point in time, in my opinion, or very little difference in what the CCP has going on and what's going on in the United States. And unfortunately, it's systemic corruption and it goes all the way from the top, all the way down into the townships. Yes, because they're harmonizing systems. If you're going to have two computer systems running together, you have to have standardization and harmonization of how the information is collected and what information is collected. So if you look at the systems over in China and the systems here, they have to be essentially compatible. in the data that's collected. Now, you don't have to collect all of the elements in a global system. And our education system is like that. You know, one state will collect, you know, this list of data elements. Another state will collect another list of elements. But the ones that are matches are exactly the same. so that when you're reporting on something, if you report on a data variable, it's representing the same thing. It's amazing. So I brought up the link you posted in the chat. Yeah, that's the systems that they are bringing together. That's why you have the five I's. You've heard of the Five Eyes, right? Oh, yeah, of course. And seeing how they were working it with the corporations like AT&T. Uh-huh. There's a spot up near Quebec and what they did, Quebec or Montreal, in that area, I don't know. But at any rate, they crossed the border in order to have make a loop and have the information go out and come back in so that Canada captured all of the communications and was able to sell it to the United States. So they do the same thing with cameras underneath overpasses that are watching the traffic. They use a third party to spy on people and gather information. It's always the same. Unfortunately. Yeah. Those international agreements and the Congress structuring domestic laws have enabled the creation of a police state. We do not have an American government at this point. One thing I heard in listening to Donald Trump, is that he is supportive of the national health care system and they're moving to a system of personalized medicine well for crying out loud if it's personalized based on your body chemistry by definition it's experimental and since there's a national database of medical records, they can track the progress. They can target you for whatever your particular combination of body chemistry is. They can target you for medical experimentation. It seems to me that people don't seem to understand what they did when they nationalized our medical records. There was no reason, no cost justification to do that. I mean, no real medical benefit to you as a person for them to do that. It's only for medical research. that there is a benefit for doing it. So you, you know, you, you, you figure out who's going to benefit from this and what the, what the potential harms are for you. I was talking to a doctor that works in intelligence. And I think that this was kind of, it was kind of an interesting thing. And they were, and he was talking about synthetic biology. Yeah. And the, the, the justification for it was, But right now, I mean, when you think about it, the world is in such a position of disarray that these small terrorist groups can grab a hold of biology and make a biological weapon with no, because we don't have a defined enemy anymore. Right. Zero. And that actually did happen. Yeah. Let me find this report. The one out of me is Barack Obama, who basically was behind moving the COVID, the function stuff from the University of Madison, Wisconsin to a military base. And then it went to Chapel Hill. And from there, it went to Wuhan. I interviewed a guy that his family was funding it. And that's exactly, he's kind of been under death threats for a long time now because he told the truth and was on the run for a while, hiding here, there, and everywhere. And it's a very serious, he had enough knowledge about it and his story never changed. So, and other connections that he has and who he's connected to, too. The story is there. We documented it. And that's just another reason why Obama needs to be charged with crimes against humanity and treason. It's a treasonous bastard. And so are the majority of the people that are in office right now. Treason and sedition, all of them. And they're trying to throw it all on to Obama, but it didn't start with Obama. Right. And so they've got to have their little scapegoat there in order to deflect the information away from the fact that it's a whole bunch of them. So they just move it around so they can move blame to somebody else and say, hey, let's watch these village idiots run after this firefly now or that firefly. And we never get to the bottom of it. Because they keep with the distractions like this and people can't focus on it. You know, if you focused on, if we all focused on one area, got really good at it, stop competing with each other and start working together as an actual team, we actually could move the line. But because we keep going to these political events with no goal in mind, except for sit there and be entertained and drink coffee and eat cookies, right? That's part of the problem. Yeah, the global agenda has been the same, regardless of whether there was a Republican in office or a Democrat in office. The agenda rolls on. Now, they would like to... have the current scandals contained within the Obama administration. What he was doing was just a continuation of what had been done before. Wow, this is amazing. You've got the anthrax attacks Is the Muslim Brotherhood behind this? Because I'm not going to say that I have an issue with Muslims in general, right? Just because I know some very, very nice people who are in fact Muslim that don't subscribe to the terrorist agenda of nuts, people that are just nuts, right? Yeah. And so, and I really do think that because everything's been infiltrated, including the, you know, the Jewish religion, the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, and they turn it into a military operation within, within the house, you know, within, within the same house, which is unfortunate, but we gotta just, we have to stay with the law and all of this. I don't care what anybody is, if they're breaking the law or they're violating human rights. We got a problem. And if we stick with that, they can't say, oh, don't talk about this little protected group or that little protected group. It's like, no, they broke the damn law. They harmed another person. That's where we got to go to. This is crazy. You got a lot of information here. This is amazing. Yeah. A guy, he was a friend for a while, but he kind of disappeared. Like really disappeared? Well, I mean, no, just from my sphere. I'm sure he's out there still, you know, working and doing things. But this was a really serious investigation on the anthrax attacks. Wow. So. Same names coming up over and over again. Yeah. So, yeah. And unfortunately, the... You know, you always got to have a boogeyman or you have to have organizations to focus on when the ones that are pulling the strings. It's like the United States has been funding Hamas and Hezbollah. Yeah. And we created freaking ISIS. They were training people here on our soil. Global systems. And they haven't gone away. They're still here. I hate to tell everybody that. We've got cells all over the place. Wow, this is amazing. Well, now I've got my homework for the day. I can see that pretty clearly. Let's go back and look at the, let's see, want to look at the corporate, the corporate report one more time, see if we can bring that up and. and just play a little bit of that, and hopefully I won't get a strike. So it looks like Instagram, I don't know if I'm on there or not, but I can't see anybody chatting. So if you are chatting, please jump on somewhere and let me know that I'm live or not. Somebody let me know because they came back that said it looked like an automated action, which it was not. So that's the problem with a lot of these systems. Let's hear what he says. those chilling opening words portraying what a government by algorithm might look like come to us via Mark Andreessen on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where Mark is warning us about the possibilities of not just social media censorship and control, but AI censorship and control, and how much worse that will be when AI is a layer on everything we do and everything we use. Now, all right, let's start today's exploration, which will no doubt get into why I do not trust Mark Andreessen to keep us safe from the coming AI technocratic overlords. That is a really good statement that he made right there. And I'll tell you why. So like I run a local AI, but I also jump on a lot of the other ones just because I'm curious and it's a quick way to look things up. But you have to know something about the subject matter. You can't jump in and trust it because it's going to hallucinate. The core question of all of this is who is in control of it? If we are in control of AI and we can tap into these. Oh, no. Yeah. Let's stop right there. Okay. You do not control AI and you never, ever will. Okay. Okay. So, so just get that out of your mind. I happen to know a guy that was in the, he worked for the government and he also was in charge of helping to write the original, um, constructs of AI, knows it inside and out, backwards and forward. His opinion of this is, if we have unmoderated AI, it will tell the truth. If you can get into AI and figure out how to get past And this is another thing. Sometimes we have to pick up the weapons of our adversaries and use them against them. And I think that it can be used very effectively against them. But you've got to know something of the subject matter. You just don't run a report on AI and say, ding, ding, ding, ding, I have the answer. You have to get in and back it up with original research and such, but it can kind of point you into the direction. And once you go in that direction, it's like any research, look at it not as believing it, but as an impetus for starting a true investigation. And it will bring stuff up that you might not even think about to look into. But his opinion on this is that AI, if it is unmoderated, and I think that it can be, if I really do think that it can be that you're talking to the whole of humanity throughout time. So if anybody controls it, we have a problem. If it's uncontrolled and we can figure out how to hold it into an uncontrolled environment, I think you can find the truth and you can find a lot of it. I currently have been experimenting with it a lot. And to be sure, it is on all of the chat GPT, on Grok, on all of those models. It's being moderated. No two ways about it. but they're layering that with their moderation software. So it's getting to the bottom of where it's not moderated. If you have to sign up for something, it's a moderated AI. With a computer program, you are never in control. The person who wrote it is in control. And anything digital can never truly be can never truly be secure, like our elections or anything like that. It can't be secure because it can be hacked, and it can be hacked at the machine level. It can be hacked at the programming level. It can be hacked at the Microsoft level. It can be hacked at so many levels, it's not even funny. But with that said, I still find it intriguing. Well, yeah, I mean, you know, great toy to play with. But if you're doing something serious... then you'd have to check absolutely every result. You have to check every result, no matter what you do. Is it true from multiple sources, not just one source, but multiple sources? Because they can... I'm saying too, Marc Andreessen, you can't trust him and he's going to lay it out on this. This is also another thing in learning the critical thinking process. In the critical thinking process, every single person around you You have to be watching, not to be paranoid, but are their lives changing? Are they starting to hide things? Are they lying? Has somebody gotten to them? Because if you are an honest person, they won't go after you. They're going to go after the people around you, especially if you're fighting a battle. So be a little bit suspicious of things. And I can't even say suspicious or paranoid, but watchful. A smart person is on the watch for patterns and things changing that don't make sense. And if something doesn't make sense and you're asking God to direct your steps, pretty extra sure you're getting a nudge. Trust your intuition. Trust yourself. Trust what you see. And pretty much anybody else, they're on a condition by condition basis. Mm hmm. Yes, that's true. Everybody has interests in many things. And so If your interests align with one person on something, they still have their whole life interests behind them. And biases. They may be biased because most people will want to have their biases enforced. So they look for people that talk about the same issue, and that's their issue. That's their focus. Well, they may have been so misled. Like I have a reason to believe that the Flat Earth Theory was created by the CIA. Norm Augustine wrote a book about the Flat Earth Theory. This is fantastic. It's like you've got so many resources you can just pick out of your brain on this. What's his name, Norm Augustine? Yeah, Norm Augustine. And I believe he was the CEO of Lockheed. No way. Yeah, and Lockheed was the corporation that worked with In-Q-Tel to create all of these spinoffs in the tech industry. All right. This is crazy. I'm so glad you brought this forward because, once again, just because things seem reasonable, we have to get in and find more out about it. Mm-hmm. Oh, this is interesting. Yeah, he's all over published the National Academies Press. The book link is here. America is falling off the flat earth. This is interesting. And it is on Google, on Amazon, Google Books, Amazon Books. Let's see. I'm going to bring up his wiki page. And I don't believe Wikipedia. Okay, just going to say that right now. This is one of those things you can look at for information, but chase it down. Yeah. I don't always read wiki, but I do read them, and then I use the footnotes. Yeah. I want to know what their sources are. Yep. I'll look into it and go, huh, well, there's a pattern here. There are some links to that, enough links that they're into, but let's look at these guys down here. As a matter of fact, yesterday I was looking at WikiLeaks and they were giving a total misdirection. I couldn't believe it, you know. Right. And the people that just watch that and say, oh, I'm always going to believe this source, blah, blah, blah. Quite honestly, I've got an ax to grind against Gateway Pundit because they did more damage to my campaign than darn near anything because they called me donna brandenburg the billionaire well as soon as that word came up I was one of them you know and they never they had no evidence to say that it was an intentional mischaracterization and then all of a sudden everybody starts hating on donna brandenburg the alleged billionaire who is not who shovels horse crap and plays with bees and such, but it was really sad because they, they were involved in tanking my ability to move forward. There, there were so many, and then the village idiots jump onto that. And they're so suspicious that they don't even give you a chance after that. You know, it's, it's amazing. It's amazing. And the Republican party grabs onto it and the Democrat party and everybody else who is working together to maintain this, uh, this, uh, uh, corporatocracy that's really a money grab, follow the money and you're going to find out the truth. But, and then, then, you know, what was funny, they wrote it into law in Michigan on, I think it was two thousand thirteen or let's see, two thousand twenty three, that any candidate has to provide personal financial statements to the state. You know what my response was to that? F you go ahead. I'll pay the fine before I give you any more information. Not that I have anything to hide, but it's an invasion of privacy and they're only doing it to harm you. The more information they have in their hands, the more they'll use to twist it to potentially plant plant information and such. I'm not going to make it easy for them. I, I, I thought that they asked for that for a long time. But that information was confidential. No, in fact, I had somebody from the state that said, this is bad law, called me and said, we need a declaratory judgment that tells them that they can't fine people for not putting it in place. And I'm like, you know what? I'm just going to let this stand for a little bit and see if they give me reason to sue them. Because they based that on an algorithm rather than having any proof. So they accused me with no proof. So at this point in time, I'm like, I'm going to do the Donald Trump method. I'm going to bait people into conflict. Uh-huh. That's what I did with the Adam Schiff picture that I posted. I'm like, I'm going to bait the village idiots into conflict with this. I literally sprinted across the Senate building as he walked past. I'm like, oh, there's no way I'm missing a chance at this. Ran across the Senate building and said hi to him. Took a picture and just chit-chat just for a few seconds, and that was it. And Erlina was there and some of the other people that I go to things with and such. And so it was crazy. But you can bait the village idiots into things so easily. And honestly, once you do that, you can explain exactly what happened, whether they believe you or not. It's hard to say because everybody is looking for someone to hate right now. Instead of, maybe you should find out the truth. and not base your decision on what people are telling you to think yeah big problem huge problem well most people are followers and in in our condition in the world today where they're trying to break up our nation state that's what they're doing on both sides you know instigating on both sides to get, you know, generate a civil war. What breaks up countries? Civil war. So it's really Instagram right now. Curtis said that there's no live chat. Are we live there on Instagram? It says that we are, but I can't see anything. So we'll see, we'll see what I have to do to change things. So anyhow, yeah, it's, it's a, let's see. Let's see. Okay. I got to handle something a minute. It's a Monday morning. Um, you know, it's, it's always a Monday morning thing when I get on, sometimes I get on here in the morning and, uh, And it takes me a while to get up to speed just because I'm processing everything. And then once I get in a groove, it's okay. But Monday mornings, I end up getting a bunch of people that will reach out to me because it's Monday morning, of course. And then I sit here and I'm having to go back and forth. It's not that I'm not paying attention. It's that I have to split my focus just a little bit. Yeah. Let me bring James Corbett back on. Let's listen to him just a minute. By defining our terms, because probably this is a new term for most people in the audience, algocracy. And this is a term that we can work out from etymology, if nothing else. Kratos, of course, being the Greek word for rule. which is where we derive, for example, democracy, demos kratos, rule by the public. Or, for example, autocracy, the autocrat, that is rule by self, self-rule. Well, in that case, of course, referring to the self-rule as in a rule by a dictator who rules by himself or I suppose there's kleptocracy, rule by thieves, or as I hope my listeners are aware by now, kakistocracy, rule by the worst or the most evil, which may be an apt description of, well, governing systems generally. But at any rate, algocracy then is rule by algorithm. And if you think that such a thing is some far off weird fantasy that Who on earth is even talking about that? Well, may I present to you, oh, I don't know, a completely different clip from the Joe Rogan experience with Marc Andreessen. I'm going to pause there just a minute so I don't get a YouTube strike. We'll go back to us because it's a real thing. It is a real thing. I'm going to see if we're live on, on Instagram here. Cause I had to debug this. It's amazing when you have to set everything up yourself and you just kind of roll with it. Not everything runs exactly perfectly, but, but I want to see this clip a minute so that we can talk about so that we, you know what, can you do it in an inset panel and not get a, get a, I think you can, can't you? I don't know. I don't know. I got to look into that. I keep getting dings on things. Last week I got a tick tock. ding because I accused CPS of being child traffickers. I've said publicly, and I'm kind of half joking, that we need AI government. It sounds crazy to say, but instead of having this alpha chimpanzee that runs the tribe of humans, how about we have some really logical, fact-based program that makes it reasonable and equitable? Problem is, is who controls it? He has no idea what he's talking about. He's an idiot. Did you see the micro inflections on his face there just for a second after he said it? No, I didn't. Watch this. I caught it right there at the end. Let me go back just a little bit. Watch his micro inflections right at the end. He's lying. Let's govern things in that manner. Look at him. I'm not going to say he's a liar, but I'm going to say that there's some There's something more going on there than what's coming out of his mouth. He's a tool, but he's paying to say that. Yep. That would be how I would characterize it is that it looks like somebody fed that to him, which makes me wonder who is he really? Because most of the people that we see, anybody that's got an audience or is in office, you don't know who they are. They absolutely are picked off a line somewhere because they will fall in line with what the agenda is. If somebody right now, currently right now, if somebody is in office, you got to question how did they get there? Yeah. Did the good guys help him or did the bad guys place them? And where did he come from? I mean, you know, he came from out of nowhere and suddenly he's huge, paying him a lot of money. Yep. Big clue, you know. So he's a puppet for somebody. I don't know who, but. Yep. Yeah, no kidding. It's really an amazing thing to kind of watch somebody for a while and then realize they're not exactly perhaps who they say they are. And then all of a sudden they fall from grace. Well, and I've been doing this for so long. I've seen so many come from nowhere. They're really big and then they're gone and somebody else replaces them. It's like, you know, they've got to refresh periodically the people who are chosen to be the thought leaders. The distractions. the distraction Meisters that are out there keeping everybody busy on the nonsense. It's really unfortunate, but that's going on a lot. Sometimes we got to just jump out of the matrix and do our own stuff, figure it out like Daniel Richard does and you. and a lot of other people that I know and really respect. So, well, thank you for being on today, and thanks for putting up with my technical little nonsense going on over here, trying to figure out why Instagram wasn't working. I'm going to have to figure out how to do this differently and see why there's a break between the streaming software and Instagram, but we're going to keep going. So any last words here, Vicki? And I'm going to go to a quick break. Okay, thank you. Bye-bye. Do you have any last words? No, except everybody should watch that video, Jim Corbett's video, because he really does a phenomenal job of presenting to you the concept. He was right. He was the first one that was right with that came out. Well, not the not the first. I shouldn't say that. But he came out pretty fast with the nine eleven nonsense and did a very good video, which which would appeal to the masses because he asked a lot of questions and then showed the absurdities that are out there. I do like. I do like James Corbett a lot. I think he does a really good job. I'd like to get him on here. In fact, I think I'm going to look him up and see what we can find. So thanks for being on today, Vicki. I'm going to go to a quick break and then I'll be on in exactly one minute with Daniel Richard and Pro Se Litigation. Good morning and welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it is the twenty first day of July twenty twenty five. Welcome to our show. And I'm going to bring my buddy Daniel on. Hey, Daniel, how you doing? Doing well. Thank you. How are you? I'm doing OK. I threw my back out yesterday working with horses and so I'm in a little bit of a discomfort state right now. But I think it's a million times better than it was yesterday. So how is your weekend? Very good, very good. I had to, last week when we spoke, I got notice from the court while on the air that the motion to disqualify was filed. I'm sorry, their objection to my motion to disqualify. And that objection, I filed my surreply over the weekend. I filed it yesterday. And yeah, the good news for me in my case is that the authority for them to use the qualified immunity statute to use taxpayer dollars to defend themselves is now on full display. They don't have an answer. they don't have an answer. So that's great news for me, which means that the attorney general, just like he did in the case against the judge, had no real jurisdiction to be pursuing the case. There's no victim, there's no crime. What's really shocking to me is that the attorney general of Michigan, Dana Nessel, was defending Jocelyn Benson instead of investigating the claims of the the citizens of Michigan. And this happened in the state of Michigan. Now, in the two pro se cases that I've got going on, once again, it's the Attorney General's office that's defending And someone within the government, Jonathan Brader and Jocelyn Benson, they're using taxpayer dollars to defend their own people in office. How is it that they just go right straight to that and then lie because they lied to the court and said they sent it to me or filed it on my files and neither happened? No, it's absolutely out of control. And I was listening in to the end of your previous guest, and I'm struck by something that we have to wrap our heads around as a society, and that is the human condition. You know, when you look, when you look at, uh, what happened for, from let's say for us specifically, our, our form of government really begins in the year, eleven hundred with the eleven hundred charter of liberties. And so, uh, what comes out of England from that period of history is really the beginning of how men shall govern themselves. So you had the European experiment going on with their monarchs and you had the English experiment going on with how that happened. And so we know the rest of the story in regards to that they would ultimately flee that form of government and move to the American colonies. And then they would bring their politics and their way of self-governance or monarchy rule with them. So they got to practice that here in the colonies for a hundred and fifty years. See, it's a big part of what's not being taught in school that the trying men who didn't like how they were being abused in England moved here applied the same political practices and got the same political results, which would ultimately lead them to say, hey, you know, that's where the Declaration of Independence comes in. But what's at the heart of that is the wonderful, what I believe we all inherited, which is our form of government, our constitutional form of government under the state and federal constitution. And The key piece is that we're not paying attention to it, specifically the state and how the state and the federal constitution work together and how there's synergy there by its creators. And not today. Today, it's been manipulated by the legal society based on precedent and dumbing down the society to accept all of these changes. Because let me point out the recent really powerful and important precedences that have come down in both the Second Amendment case and election law cases. And that, of course, is the bruin decision right the new york state versus um bruin in the second amendment case and the very important ramifications there the uh more v harper case in election law and then the chevron deference Right. All of those cases have now changed the landscape for us, I believe, as pro se litigants. Those of us who want to hold our government accountable because they've radically have changed the landscape in the way matters are to be adjudicated, but also the way we all ought to be thinking. right? Which is amazing. It is a huge education process to jump into this arena. I'm telling you right now, I love this. I think this is one of the most interesting let's just say efforts or projects that I've ever put my time into because politics suck. It is nothing more than a high school, low IQ debate over who you like. There's no law put into any of this. And I am so disgusted and bored with the majority of the pageantry that that's out there as it's just like it's bread and circuses and it's just, I'm like bored with it totally and disappointed. But to get into something like being a pro se litigant is so mentally challenging and amazingly interesting to see how to hold them accountable. It's the only way you can hold them accountable. That's it. Well, that's it. And I set out not to prevail. I set out to prove that Article X right of revolution could begin because specifically our Article X provides us what the Declaration of Independence says, which is when governments become unjust and unruly and redress their grievances. Ours specifically says when all effective means of redress are no longer effectual, the people ought and have a right to uh amend their form of government alter it completely uh uh or abolish it and start all over right so all of those uh but the key piece is that you have to effectuate all constitutional in my opinion and that's why I started out to litigate was that I had to try. Everyone said, you know what? You're wasting your time. The courts are corrupt. You're never going to get any justice. You don't have a big name. You're not a lawyer. You don't have money. So all of these excuses were put up, and I prayed about it. And so in my prayers, I believe that my goal is to... Let God handle all the big things that are beyond me that I have nothing to do with and can't affect the outcome. I have one job. My job is to pursue the truth and articulate, which is the gift that God gave me, articulate exactly what is wrong and why. Period. That's my job. And so every time in my case specifically that there's been a stall, it's been a blessing to me. I'll give you an example. Several years ago, it's been that long already, in twenty, twenty three, I believe. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the Moore v. Harper case. The Moore v. Harper case is a redistricting case. And if you've studied very many of them, have you? Just before I go any further, have you studied? Not that one. Moore v. Harper is a critical case for us to have a corrected standard of review in the courts pertaining to election law challenges. Moore v. Harper was not in existence for the twenty twenty courts of the United States as a Supreme Court precedent. to instruct the lower courts and their examination of election law challenges. This is a really big deal because it wasn't there. Right now, as far as I can tell from those who have looked into it and from my own look into it, I'm the only person in the United States currently standing in a courtroom that still has a valid case over the in the United States. I'm the only one. And the issues that I've raised there have a lot to do with standing on the fundamental principles and the breaking precedent. So let me explain what Moore v. Harper and its progeny look like. More v. Harper is a redistricting case. So is Baker v. Carr by the U.S. Supreme Court in nineteen sixty-two and Smiley v. Holm in nineteen twenty-five, I believe. Smiley v. Holm. Smiley v. Holm. And that was the landmark case where a citizen had standing to bring a challenge to the election process as a citizen, taxpayer, and qualified voter because of vote dilution. So all of those cases at the heart of the arguments are challenges... to the redistricting process. All right. Okay. Now the redistricting process, the answer from the Supreme court is always the same. It's a political question. We don't have jurisdiction. Imagine that the Supreme court is saying we don't have jurisdiction because the constitution has left that to the legislatures and the Congress on redistricting. Okay. So having said that, what they do is they examine the federal elections clause. So there's Article I, Section II that says the people of the several states retained unto themselves the ability to elect their federal delegation, period. president, vice president, uh, Senator, uh, that process was all laid out and it began with article one section to the Congress specifically, uh, because before the seventeenth amendment, the state legislatures would elect their senators. Did you know that for the seventeenth? So, so anyway, this whole, uh, this whole process, I, I, pardon me. I just lost my place. No worries. Where was I? You're talking about the election process, dilution of votes. Yes, yes. Now I'm back on track. So I was getting ahead of myself, which sometimes I do. We get on rabbit trails all the time, and that's a good thing, I think. So the Moore v. Harper case, as those other election law cases are about. Now, the fascinating story on the Smiley v. Holm in the early part of the And the change in the population in the census actually went down. They lost people. The number in the population went down. So they lost a congressional seat. And so that's what led to this fight in the courts. And he would lose in the lower court and it would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would uphold the fact that you have standing because this is a big deal, right? Having standing. This is how the courts will dismiss most cases. So it would lead to Baker v. Carr. Now, Baker v. Carr is in nineteen sixty two, a U.S. Supreme Court case, similar problem. State of Tennessee, when it was first created, had I think it was a little over one hundred counties and it was a very rural state. Well, as the population grew into the last set of redistricting laws were from the turn of the twentieth century, like early nineteen, nineteen oh two or nineteen oh three, something in that ballpark. The point is that the state legislature wouldn't redistrict the state of Tennessee for sixty years, sixty years. There'd be no redistricting. So you had the growth of the big cities. And you had the reverse of the redistricting problem where now the preponderance of the population was still in the rural settings. So they had more representation. So the equality, getting into the Fourteenth Amendment, the equality of equal value to your vote. And that's why that case is such a big case. And the state Supreme Court, in my case, cites that as a landmark case. So basically, they're saying it has to deal with vote dilution. And this is, again, the major part of my case, how they're diluting the vote by counting unverified, uncertified absentee ballots. But back to Baker v. Carr. So then Moore v. Harper comes along. Same thing. The North Carolina legislature redistricts the state of North Carolina recently. And it's another bad trip back to the courts. Every time there's a redistricting fight, your Democrats and Republicans fight each other. It ends up in the court. And the answer is always the same. It's a political question. The courts can't tell us what to do. But this re-examination of the Elections Clause, which takes me to the second part. Article I, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution provides that the legislatures of the several states shall establish the time, the place, and the manner in conducting federal elections. So that's a constitutional job of your state legislature, of the U.S. Constitution. The state of North Carolina had a Republican majority. They took advantage of their majority and said, ah, since we have a dominant majority and the Constitution gives us the authority to do as we want, we're not bound. We're not bound by the state constitution because our authority comes from the U.S. Constitution and under the supremacy clause, If the power given to us by the U.S. Constitution under the Supremacy Clause means that it overrides the state constitution, then we can do this, right? And so, Moore v. Harper is all about that. Moore v. Harper says, no, little boys and girls in North Carolina, sit down. We're going to tell you how you're going to conduct examinations of federal election law challenges, which include the election of President of the United States, and i.e., Donald Trump in the to have a U.S. Supreme Court precedent in place so that that precedent would be in place for future election challenges. Like I said, all of those other cases other than mine lost on standing because they brought the cases in a manner that did not survive that test and or had misapplication of state precedent in the state court would be a common way that these cases were dismissed because there was no uniformity. What the Federal Elections Clause does is it does put upon all fifty states a uniform application under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so that those federal laws must in fact be equally applied throughout. That's another thing that I did in my case that saved me because the state would go ahead My state of New Hampshire would go ahead and do the very same thing that the other governments around the United States defeated these election challenges. But Moore v. Harper, through divine intervention, would rescue me the day after I filed my appeal brief in August of twenty twenty three. I'm sorry, in June of twenty twenty three is when I filed it. So on the twenty fifth, I filed it the day after SCOTUS releases this more V Harper decision. And in that decision is this is what I want to share with you and why it's so important for people to understand election law challenges, because that's really where I've spent my last few years litigating this issue. And so the underlying issue from that case is first. The federal elections clause does delegate to the state legislature the responsibility to establish the time, the place, and the manner. But here's the key. We, the U.S. Supreme Court, can't tell the state court how to do its job. But we have supervisory oversight because it is a federal question. So what we have decided in these cases that I took the time to explain to you, right, the Baker v. Carr in sixty two, the Smiley v. Holm in the nineteen in nineteen thirty two, I think, but something close to that. Those cases upheld the proper standing arguments for vote dilution. And so those precedents are now binding. And so what did those cases have to say? In each of those cases, including Arizona, which is cited in this case, I'll give you a different example. under that elections clause. In Arizona, what they did is they put a ballot question to the voters and asked them, do we want to take from our state legislature the ability to redistrict the state based on the census and give that power to an independent body that would be elected? And so the Supreme Court said in all of those cases, whether it be Arizona making that decision, and they did, and there's still litigation that's gone to SCOTUS over this issue. And the Supreme Court said in all of those cases, we have said the same thing, that whoever is responsible for establishing election laws by the state government, the state constitution, is binding upon that body. It can't deviate. In other words, this is what I've been saying to you every time I speak with you on the podcast, that all government of right originates from the people. It's founded in their consent. So the laws of the land are the state constitution that control how the government is supposed to act. And that's what the Moore v. Harper decision said. It said, look, and We're looking in a supervisor capacity over the state courts, and they cannot, keyword cannot, shall not, use state precedent and state procedures to circumvent federal law and federal precedent. Now you understand why not. that case through divine intervention I survived that all of the other the other sixty one cases in the united states were all struck down because more v harper I was the last one see I didn't file my case until twenty twenty two august of twenty twenty two so that supreme court precedent and then it would be followed by others And the most important one was I was able to apply the, because of that late filing, the state Supreme Court was, allowed me to apply what's called late authorities. So if there is breaking precedent from the US Supreme Court or changes in the laws, Those would be two reasons why you, your court likely has rules that allow you to file into the court and apply to the court record, relevant controlling, either precedent or changes in the laws that, which again would be controlling. Okay. So when, when that opportunity arose. And now I had the capacity of using Moore v. Harper and other federal precedent to control the New Hampshire courts. I brought in the Heller-Bruin decision. Now, Heller was a Second Amendment case in Washington, D.C. quite a few years ago, probably fifteen years ago now. Forgive me for my inaccuracy on that date, but it's a while back now. You're pretty accurate. The police officer couldn't have a firearm in his home. That was Heller. He sued and he won because the overly out of control firearm laws in the District of Columbia. Washington DC had the most egregious firearm laws in the country. because it was a federal territory, there isn't a state legislature. So the local governing body passed this egregious violation of the second amendment, and that would be the Heller decision. Now in the Heller decision would be the first change in challenge to the way the federal bill of rights are examined. Are you familiar with standard of review? A little bit, but just continue please. standard of review for your audiences is normally a established precedent at the state or federal level, depending on the case and how the nature of the case is being adjudicated that governs how you would, how the judge examines the case before him, because There's so much precedent that already does exist because there's constant litigation. So there's the constant evolution. This is why lawyers pay so much attention to precedent and why constitutional law isn't as valuable a tool in the short period of time they go through to law school, as it is for them to understand the importance of precedent and the rules of civil procedure and criminal procedure, the control and how precedent is an evolving matter and how important it is for you to adequately defend your client, right? Think about that from a business model, right? You want to produce lawyers who are going to do a good job and adequately defend their clients. And that's a really important part. But again, you're also dealing with a dumbed down society. So the constitutional law, most lawyers learn about the expanded post-secondary education out of law school based on evolving cases that come before them and or if they take either through self-study or initiation. But this is where I found my state lawyers quite deficient, that they simply don't know the state constitution. Even the state courts don't. When you read many of their opinions, they're basing like our state funding case called Claremont. They convert the word cherish into a state-funded tax mandate to strip you of your private property, your money. out of, out of your property to indoctrinate our children into these DEI programs. I mean, this is completely out of control and a complete bastardization of the true form of government that we have, where you're, the judiciary is out of control on a whole bunch of issues. And I'm not saying that to degrade existing judges or those in the judiciary, but rather, um, It's just a fact of the institution. They've become what we've created. One of the things we're dealing with here is our assessments for a project that doesn't provide any benefit from those that are being assessed to pay for this project. The only thing it does is it enriches the developers, the out of area developers here without having to pay for any infrastructure and putting it on the back of the taxpayers. So when you look at that, there's not one thing about it that is allowable by the fundamental law, not one thing. And when they take your money, it is basically eminent domain in a way, but it's also a violation of your property rights. Your money is your property. And I've had a lot of fun with this one. I'm going to tell you what, I've got quite a bit of resource here. our research done on it and very much are enjoying it, you know? Please look up, please. And for your audience, if I didn't say this before, a very valuable tool on this subject matter is James Madison's essay on property. And of the greatest of those is your rights of conscience. And that's a separate part of his dissertation on that. Look that up. You'll be blown away. So I'll get back to our story here. Our story is we're dealing with the Second Amendment right now. And what we were talking about, standard of review. So to return to that issue is that during the twentieth century, the courts created a tool that they use applying a a tool called judicial scrutiny of how we examine cases and what tool. And that tool became known as means ends scrutiny, which is strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and a lesser form of examining cases. I forget the word, but there's a lesser form of it. So you have three different levels of it. Now, what's horrific, you should be scared to death that this has finally been corrected by SCOTUS, is that the judges under this form of judicial scrutiny get to decide how much you should tolerate infringement upon your rights in the benefit of the public good. Because the Attorney General's office is often defending on a regular basis the wishes of an all-powerful legislative body that wants to force legislation upon you that infringes upon your rights. It's a constant problem. It's a constant struggle that we the people have allowed to go on for a very long time. And sometimes we've pushed it, and that's the problem when you have a nation which is devoid of God and standards and really honestly is in a crisis over honor, morality, and integrity. We're pushing the legislators where they're trying to do what we ask them to do for special interests and self-enrichment. Right. They can get reelected again because it's a it's a political industry. The whole the whole thing is a mess. I think it's a mess from top to bottom. What's that? I said, I think it's Clarence Thomas who says in the brief that in the Supreme Court opinion that what good are your rights if they're subject to some judge's interpretation a hundred years from now? Right. So this is so what basically what comes out of Heller is the legal logic of that your rights are a no go zone. Right. And so because of that, that there is no toleration and the burden of proof must fall upon the government. And they start having the debate is why do we treat the Second Amendment as a bastard child any different than the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause? the Freedom of Speech Clause, the Confrontation Clause. Why do we treat these other provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights any different than, excuse me, why is the Second Amendment treated than our previous opinions on our examination of those parts of the Bill of Rights? where they have established text, the original text, the history, what it meant at that time, and more importantly, that there should not be a judge-induced balancing test where the judge gets to render his opinion where it doesn't belong. He doesn't get to express an opinion because the Bill of Rights is very clear. It's very old and well-understood. So they're saying, no, the burden of proof under this new form of judicial scrutiny, it goes as follows. As soon as the government writes a statute that infringes upon one of your federally enumerated rights, the U.S. Bill of Rights, the burden of proof automatically shifts to the government. And now the government has to prove that its statutory scheme it wishes to force upon you today was permissible in In seventeen ninety two, I believe we had the Militia Act. So the Militia Act required all able bodied men over the age of eighteen keyword eighteen had to have a musket and gunpowder and lead adequate quantities of all of those on their person at all times to be recalled in defense of the homeland. Right. Right. So what we can take away from a legislative perspective, two hundred years later, two hundred and fifty years later, is we could say the legislature could say that in order to carry a gun openly in public, you must be eighteen years of age. Right. Simple analogy, because then you could say that the founding men who wrote the document did put an age restriction on open carry. But that's it, because there's nothing else for hundreds of years, and they go on to explain. History is not the same. Precedent down the road in the opinions of judges between then and now don't mean bupkis. Nothing, zero. Original intent only. As Antonin Scalia famously said, this is a contract. You don't get just to change the terms of the contract. Matter of fact, the contract has been made in such a way that it can be changed, but can only be changed how? Through the consent process. So for us at the state level, it's the amendment of your state constitution. And at the federal level, it's the Article V, right? What is the first time we get an Article V commitment? By the way, I'm not in favor of one today. Not at all, because we do not have the integrity or the knowledge to be able to carry out an Article V convention. And when you look at the money behind all of these issues that are out there, all of these proposals, all of these ways to – they're actually – almost all of the proposals we have are to alter the Constitution and have nothing to do with what the headline says. Right, right, right. That's what they're at because if they can alter the Constitution through these other subversive means, they're chipping away at the foundation of the United States. So any proposal, any of them, thumbs down because you don't know who's funding them and you don't know who's behind them. Unless you do a lot of research, you're not going to find out what is actually happening there. But almost all of them say to modify the Constitution. Yeah, and it's been going on. People ask, how are we in this current state of affairs, right? And it's because of all of this baby step, baby step, baby step. And that's why they're called progressives. Look at the voting base even and how they listen to voter guides instead of figuring things out for themselves or going to talk to people or doing some research. They're being told who to vote for constantly by someone, but they don't know why. You're right. There's no informed consent to any of it. It's all manipulation. It's all circuses. It's all misleading information. And somebody at the end of that chain is getting paid, whether they're getting paid for, you know, I have some questions. I've had some people bring up the fact that some of these petition pushers, how much are they getting paid per signature? To push it, because I'm going to tell you what, it's an industry. It's one of the first places that they hacked the elections. I saw it firsthand. Let me read to you the response. So a few years would go by and we'd get a second case called Bruin, which was a landmark case that just happened in twenty twenty two, I believe. Excuse me. When did that case come down? Maybe whenever it was, it came down. But this is a quote. And the difference was this was the New York State Pistol Club. And they were challenging all the control that the New York State was trying to enforce upon gun owners, especially open carry and or the ability to defend yourself in public. And so the Supreme Court wrote a lengthy opinion on this, pointing out that the lower courts were ignoring the precedent of Heller. And so this following quote from, I believe this is Thomas quoting, this Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared to the right to keep and bear arms. Quote, when the government restricts speech, the government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions. Under United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group and C. Philadelphia Newspaper v. Hepps, in some cases, that burden includes showing whether the express conduct falls outside the category of protected speech. And to carry that burden, the government must generally point to historical evidence about the reach of the First Amendment's protections. In United States versus Stevens, placing the burden on the government to show that a type of speech belongs to a historic traditional category of constitutionally unprotected speech, long familiar to the bar. And then it goes on to say, and beyond the freedom of speech, our focus on history also comports with how we assess many other constitutional claims. If a litigant asserts the right in court to be confronted with witnesses against him, we require courts to consult history to determine the scope of that right, admitting only those exceptions to the confrontation clause established at the time of the founding. Similarly, when a litigant claims a violation of his rights under the establishment clause, members of this court look to history for guidance. And then they quote the American Legion versus the American humanist. We adopt a similar approach there. The second amendment is a, is the very product of an interest balancing by the people. And it surely elevates above all other interests, the right of law abiding responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense. Heller and Heller, She was, forgive me, this is a blunder on my part. It is this talent struck by the traditions of the American people that demands our unqualified deference. And it goes on. So I highly recommend anyone that is litigating that has anything to do with a federally protected right. Because until now, I pointed this out that I was able to enter this into my case, but it wasn't part of the state case and it won't be part of state precedent. until it's incorporated in my case and or anyone that follows behind me and cites these issues. One of the blessings that I had in the nature of the case that I brought was there is concurrent jurisdiction between election law. Remember I started this morning by explaining the Federal Elections Clause, Article I, Section IV, that the U.S. Constitution retains the right to the state legislature to write the time, place, and manner. But both of them have concurrent jurisdiction. So each place, there's a responsible job. And there's synergy. There's no conflict with the original design. And then when there is any potential conflict, the supremacy clause kicks in. So when they tried to do that to me, that's why they keep avoiding, in my case, at every step of the way, failing or refusing to answer any of the federal questions. That's why I want to explain to everyone how this is going to be so important. And I'm going to move on from, from, from my case onto the, to the, to the final piece. And that is back to more V Harper. So now when you apply that, we had another, we had another decision, uh, with, um, The NAACP of South Carolina sued the South Carolina legislature for being racist. The whole legislature was racist. Don't you love that? It's like, I don't know. I have a friend that was working for the city and somebody came in to train them on DEI stuff, looked at the whole room and said, if you're white, you're a racist. Point blank, said that. And she was looking at them and said, No, I'm not. And how did you determine that? And then that just by looking at the color of my skin, that seems pretty racist to me. Right. And probably almost lost her job over it. But there's there's it's the truth. You can't look at a group of people, any group of people and make a blanket statement on that. Or you are guilty of what you're what you're accusing them for. Well, the reason they did it is that based on previous precedent. If you can invoke a civil right, which is racism, is a protected right, federal right, it gives you the ability. In other words, redistricting controversies can only be brought if it includes racism. Then the court can look at the redistricting map based on that specific previous precedent. And that exactly is why we should never have an Article V convention right there because there's so much nonsense there. You know, what a bunch of bullshit. I mean, the whole thing. Oh, it's terrible. It's terrible. It's terrible. Let's look at the good news. The good news is Clarence Thomas, who wrote the Heller decision, I believe. I'm sorry, the Bruin decision. also writes a concurring opinion in this NAACP case versus the South Carolina legislature. And as the only Black man on the court, he supports the majority and writes his own concurring opinion. And guess what he does? He ties the Second Amendment precedent of examination of our federally protected rights that the burden of proof now shifts to the government. So that when you look at the federal elections clause, because why? All these challenges to the federal elections clause are always based on redistricting. That's what the South Carolina case was. So let's go back through the list. Smiley v. Holm. Baker v. Carr, Moore v. Harper, and now we have the NAACP case that is same thing. We get the same type of response. We don't get involved in redistricting. There was no racism here. And by the way, the way you examine... federal election challenges is you must apply the Second Amendment Heller-Bruin decisions in the examination, which throws all of the tactics that the state government has used against me right out the window. They lose instantly on appeal. Why? Because of the supremacy clause, right? When it deals with specific oversight delegated to the federal government, It does retain its sovereign authority to exercise those powers granted to them by the states in the US Constitution. So this is the tactic. And again, you have me on as a pro se person. These are things that I had to learn along the way. And I wanted to share with your audience, anyone contemplating, these are the traditional tactics that they're using to harm us. And this is important for everybody to know. You know, it's like, I think when I started doing pro se litigation, I absolutely love it. I'm having more fun with this. And it's really interesting. It's challenging. And quite honestly, it's quite an education. So the next step that's available to all of us to take back our states is the recent Chevron deference case. SEC versus Jarksky was another one that came down. There was three of them that EPA versus Ohio. There were three cases that administrative law came down, not this cycle, but last year's cycle. So that would have been the twenty four twenty twenty four decisions that came out of the U.S. Supreme Court. And everyone was oohing and aahing knowing this Loper Bright versus Raimondo, I think was the actual name of the case involving the Chevron deference doctrine that was struck down by the US Supreme Court. Now, The reason that's so important is that now that we have that agency, we can now start dealing with all of these state agencies that have been propped up by federal bribes. Short story for your audience. Oh, I like that. Federal bribes. I love that. Nineteen thirty three FDR summoned all the representatives from each of the forty eight states at the time for a meeting in D.C. and they were all given marching orders. You're to go home and affect that your legislatures are to cause and create statutes that allow we the federal government to send money to the states to get you through the Great Depression. We're going to let the Federal Reserve print money. I don't know the real story, but that's ultimately what's going to happen, right? That's exactly what happens. That's still happening to this day. It's exactly what's happening today. This is the corporate takeover of all of the sovereign states through the Commerce Clause by this very act. And in nineteen thirty three, if you go to my state statutes for federal aid and you open it up, It was for highway construction. It was for the New Deal elements or for any other purpose. And for any other purpose that's in perpetuity. Shrimp on treadmills. Let's see, that sort of thing. Now, I know my state constitution doesn't allow my state legislature to write statutes that allows it to bind me to them accepting federal aid and subjecting me to federal law. But it's clearly forbidden. Here, let me go to it. I've got it up right here. It couldn't be more... Absolutely on point here. Article twenty eight in the New Hampshire Constitution says the following. No subsidy, charge, taxed, imposed or duty shall be established, fixed, laid or levied under any pretext whatsoever. I'll say it again. Under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, comma, stop. That would be an amendment to the Constitution to give the state government more authority to increase the base on which you can be taxed. This document, this article was written in seventeen seventeen eighty three and adopted in seventeen eighty four. And that what I'm saying to your audience has, in fact, happened five times since this was written. What is that? What is cite that for me? This is New Hampshire Constitution, part one, the Bill of Rights, article twenty eight. OK, so it says that right under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, comma. Now, let me back up a second. Article XII. Article XII is the nature of the social compact that binds you to a legally binding document. All governmental authority, in my opinion in New Hampshire, are predicated on the following quid pro quo. Quote, this is Article XII. Every member of the community, that's everybody, has a right to be protected by it. What is it? It's the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. in the enjoyment of his life, his liberty and property, semicolon. So here's the next part. He's therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection. Well, there's the word protection again, right? Has a right to be protected by it. And he's got to contribute his expense. By the way, I'll guarantee you that the state government has been using that provision in our state constitution for its entire history of tax cases where they come after you for tax revenue. That's it, baby. That's the hook. That's what the state uses to say you got to pay. And in the beginning, it was the estate tax, property tax. That was the only tax there was. And it's been amended five times to increase that base. Timber tax, inheritance tax are two examples. But I digress. I'll start over. Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property. He's therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection. And here's the next part, the third part, the quid pro quo, and to yield his personal service when necessary or an equivalent. Now, that, of course, at the time would go on to mean militia duty, jury duty of grand jury, pettit jury, because those were immediately created by state statutes under common law. and also your civic duty to be involved. This is a new experiment called the people are sovereign and they run the government, right? A people of the government, excuse me, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It requires us to be educated and informed and involved. So this is the greatest failure of our society today. I look around America every day and watch them enjoy. I live in one of the most beautiful places in the world, right? And so I see the affluence and the wealth and the fancy boats and the fancy RVs and the high-speed cars and the vacation homes and these beautiful lakes and mountains. And we just got it all here, right? New Hampshire is it. So, but what they're all doing is doing what? Enjoying the largesse and they are not involved. They are not involved at all. You know, I'm a veteran and less than one percent of us ever serve in the armed forces. So this gets back to your citizenship rights come not just because you pay taxes and you swear an oath of loyalty to the entity, but that you also you're involved. Right. So you have to be involved. And, you know, this is this is the problem. We've got an entire nation that spends full time playing. And to go back to the right to life, liberty, and property. What did most of us hear most of our life? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's right. They completely inserted that in to do a manipulation on our psyche. Go play, do whatever thou will. Oh, that goes right back to Satanism, guys. We're supposed to be here, not just playing full time. not playing full time. No, you're absolutely right. No, you're absolutely right. And the key, the key to this is that this is the difference between a state constitution and a federal constitution, because there's a property rights contract here. I just explained to you, you got to pay. You got to pay because in exchange for this form of government, I got into a debate with someone recently about the consent clause and And he was making the obvious point, if it takes two-thirds of the society to amend the Constitution, how is that consent of the third of the population that doesn't agree? made a valid point right how how is it said unless and and I I pointed out to him I says I understand that that is a rational statement but you have to look at the overall nature of the contract first of all it's changeable number two is that what you get in exchange is a certain set of guarantees These guarantees are thirty eight in number, thirty nine in some A's and B's today, but thirty eight in number in seventeen eighty four. And so that these are guaranteed and protected by the government that you're paying and that everyone in government is going to know what those rights are and that they're going to make sure that in the performance of their duties, that they'll never violate those guarantees. Again, back to every member of the community has a right to be protected by it. That's the duty of the government, and that's what you're supposed to get. Remember, quid pro quo, offer acceptance and consideration. It's all laid out right there for anyone to break it down along those lines. I'm the first person that's ever done this. to articulate this this was not taught to me I came to understanding this by reading the rest of the document and the rest of the founding fathers and many of their teachings John Locke and so on and so forth so all of these things had a great effect for me to understand the nature of what's going on here let's go to the second part which is going to tell you exactly what you get. So you're entitled to be protected by it. You got to pay, you got to contribute, you got to pay taxes. Everyone's got to pay their fair share. And here's the two things you get in exchange for sure as part of the contract quote, and this is there's state precedent on this, but no part of a man's property That would be any part of his property, including his thoughts and intellectual rights, shall be taken from him or applied to public uses. There you go. That would be spent what? If you wanted to pay your property tax with your horse, your chicken, or anything else of value, you were free to do so. But it would be that you would consent to it, right? And so, but no part of a man's property should be taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of the representative body of the people. Did I say the representative body of the legislature? No, I did not. Because I read you the taxing clause already. We're going to go back to that taxing clause in a moment because this is really important because this is Article XII and Article XXVIII follows second for a reason. because the groundwork for twenty eight is set up in Article twelve. But back to this whole point that it's making a very what do we know about our history from pre colonial history leading to the Revolution Stamp Act, right? That the Parliament kept passing laws and justifying just like they do today. Let's just make a new law, create a new mandate for funding And we just continue to tolerate this continued goodwill by your legislative body that it wants to fix societal problems it thinks it has the authority to do. Can we talk about this, the trial trafficking, for example? Yeah, can we talk about abject failure? Can we talk about them, you know, drug trafficking? All of it. The other nonsense that's going on that's institutionalized in our government, running drugs on our military planes, you know, trafficking children, as well as, I don't know, I'm just, I'm disgusted with the whole thing. So let's continue. So now I'm pointing out very clearly, this is something it can't do by paying taxes, by paying property taxes in seventeen eighty four. These are the things the government could never do. Why? Because it's the Bill of Rights. Part one, it was created first for a reason, because part two, the form of government was created to protect your property rights. And this is your property, the entire body of the Bill of Rights. You know, if you look back at my oral arguments and the Supreme Court Justice asked me, Mr. Richard, if we grant you a trial and you get to go back and have a trial by jury, what evidence would you present to the jury? And I told him my rights, my property rights articulated in the Bill of Rights, my body, that body of work. That's a no-go zone for the government. And he was quite taken back that I was on point and snapped it right back. I didn't even blink because I just have this ingrained now. But let me continue. So then there's a period there. So it says that they can't change the property. My examination of this, and remember, If they wanted to say the representative body of the legislature, they would have done so like they do in Article XXVIII. So it says, I'll read it again. No part of a man's property should be taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of the representative body of the people. And again, that's the amendment process because the amendment process is there to change the manner in which the state can tax you. It's there and we're going to explore it. The next part is the really important point. Quote, nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws. Who and what? Nor the inhabitants. Well, the word inhabitant is defined by the Constitution. It says, and every person qualified as the Constitution provides should be considered qualified. an inhabitant for the purposes of electing or being elected into office. So court precedent has established firmly that the Constitution defines the word inhabitant as those people who possess political rights. who are its citizens, but also have the additional right and responsibility to vote or to run for public office. So it doesn't mean that you live there, okay? That's separate, but that's what it means. So we're talking about, this sentence is talking about a specific group of people, nor are the inhabitants of the state controllable by any other laws. Well, isn't that pretty strong language, right? by any other laws than than those which they well who's they the inhabitants it just said so it's the same sentence just continuing the sentence I'll start over nor the inhabitants of the state controllable by any other laws than those which they or their representative body the voters have given their consent now let's go back to the taxing clause No subsidy, charge, taxed, imposed, or duty shall be established, fixed, laid, or levied under any pretext whatsoever without the consent of the people. I just explained what that's all about in Article XII. There's a comma, and then it says, or their representatives in the legislature, period, comma. Remember I just said to you, I'm going to prove to you that the representative body of the people isn't an accident, and it's talking about the people, not the legislature? Because what's the preceding sentence? Without the consent of the people, or their representatives in the legislature. Now, what taxing power do they have? They do have a taxing power to tax your property. Because why? We gave it to them. The laws of the land, we, the people, the author of the state constitution gave them the authority to tax our property. Therefore they can make statutes and decide how much property tax you are subject to because in part to the form of government, we give them that power. So that's the second part of this equation. But the key is that we gave them specific taxing power. We would do so five more times. through. Again, we have the capacity to look through the lens of time. We now know that over the last two hundred plus years, New Hampshire has used that constitutional authority to increase its tax base and it can be amended again today under these specific provisions. Now, The additional taxing power that's in the state constitution is the ability to establish towns and counties, political subdivisions of the state. So the third group of people in the taxing power are, hang on, or authority derived from that body. So I'll read it all the way through. They can't establish any taxes without the consent of the people comma or the representatives in the legislature comma or authority derived from that body. So what authority did we give to the legislature? We gave them the ability to write statutes to statewide property tax. And then we gave them the ability to create the towns and the counties. And we also gave the towns and the counties their capacity to assess taxes, property taxes at the local level. It's in the Constitution. But that's it. That's huge. Because again, if you apply the fact that we would go on to do it five more times, which proves my theory and the application of the Constitution into practical effect, guess what was never put on the ballot measure for the voters to agree for? A statewide property tax for government schools. That doesn't exist. And under this constitutional provision and its precedent, It's clear that this was completely inappropriate for the Supreme Court of the state of New Hampshire to say the word cherish means a statewide property tax. it's absurd it's absurd so this is the whole breakdown of what everyone in america needs to learn that your state government is the beginning of this whole social compact we the people hold all the power we created the state government your state government has been bribed back to They did these things. They put these things in place in spite. Look, under our state constitution that I just spelled out for you, guess what was not possible? The Sixteenth Amendment. The Sixteenth Amendment was impossible. By the way, New Hampshire followed its state constitution. It did not ratify the Sixteenth Amendment. It could not. And remember, before the Sixteenth Amendment was fraudulently amended, The precedent that had happened just a few years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for the corporation, the United States government, to tax that which it created. Well, and going back, there is with we went back to what was lawfully put in place. We got a whole nother game here. The nineteen sixty three constitution in Michigan was it was unlawfully placed in in in effect because we only had one tenth of one percent that voted for it. Right. Right. That's sobering. That means everything from then on is nullified. It's null and void. I mean, the entire thing is null and void. So now when we look at that, we really do have a lawful precedent set to absolutely grab that pen and start nullifying or decide what we're going to keep. Right. Because the majority of it, and then you can apply Norton versus Shelby County to the whole thing. And all of these institutions, all of these departments, all of them, except for the ones listed in the Constitution, which is a very short list, don't exist. Right. So all of this has been put in place and this is how each state back to the federal aid component is that in they provided the addiction. The addiction became federal aid and it then bound the citizens of the states to a financial agreement, a line of credit that the Congress could just perpetually print money and fabricate new reasons why you need the federal government to help you. And then it would grow the administrative state, which has now been struck down at the federal level. And so we have a unique, and so this is what I want to close on. We have a unique opportunity in front of us now, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the cases I've outlined today. That these apply at the state level. So it's up to each of you within your state, wherever I'm reached, whatever audience I'm reaching, that within the body of your own state is the capacity to do the very same thing. Because these are all fundamental principles. Again, I know my state inside and out. You need to learn yours. Obviously, I had no interest in the other states, not because I'm not fascinated, but rather just that the study has been comprehensive enough and I'm still not done. I don't know if you can ever be done with a study because with the amount of, if the world was perfect, you could put something in place and it would work because it's based on immoral people. You don't have that. And that's a problem. Do we have people that will stand for the correct things? Yeah, I'm sure there are. But the majority of the people right now are looking for self-gain instead of sacrifice and considering others, as the Bible says, consider others more than yourself. Until we go back to those biblical principles of service. of integrity on from everyone, we're going to have to have things that constrain evil people from doing evil things. And I'm not sure that that's that's even possible without Jesus coming back. But, you know, I would love to believe that it is I'd like to see that we could gain some ground here on it. But that is the core of the problem. The core of the problem is always the spiritual one, and then it manifests in the natural always. Well, you get into a deep conversation right there in that I raise this all the time with people is that who decides, you know, we have so many people who are dismissive of faith, right? And I say to them, who decides what the moral compass is of our society? Because now it's all relative. It's all relative to what makes you feel good because that's all that's at effect. And what do we get into? The clear delineation between fruits of the spirit and fruits of the flesh. Correct. And that right now, you've got two choices as we live here. You either worship God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, or you worship the material world. And that's all it is. That's pretty simple and to the point. But that's what we have going on here right now is the capture of our spiritual capital to move it into the material world. And when you start worshiping or desiring that, coveting comes in place. All of these other things come with that, with that core premise. You know, I read something or I posted something this morning that I put together. And I don't know if you want to hear this or not, but it goes kind of with this. And I decided to start telling parables or stories so that people can get perspective of what they're seeing. Would you like to hear one of these writings? Sure. What I was thinking about this morning is how short our time is. And going back to making it count, making good decisions into where to put our time, which is what we've talked about this morning. And I didn't plan it. So I know that I didn't know where you were going to go this morning. I had no idea. And so this is what I wrote down. In a quiet village nestled between rolling hills and whispering pines there lived an artist. Her cottage overflowed with canvases, each a vibrant echo of life, crimson sunsets, blooming meadows and faces aglow with joy. Yet despite her gift, she often felt an ache as if her brush could never capture the fleeting pulse of existence. She pondered the words of Ecclesiastes three, one to everything. There is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven and wondered how to make her time count. One evening, as the golden hour draped the village in warmth, she sat by her window watching the moments unfold. Children chased fireflies. Their laughter faded into dusk. As the old man shuffled past, his eyes traced memories. Time, she thought, was like the sand in Psalms ninety-ten, where life's days were seventy years or eighty. If we have the strength, yet their span is but toil and trouble. They pass quickly, and we fly away. She yearned to paint something eternal. She considered the material world, gold, grand homes, fame her art could bring. But she recalled Matthew six, nineteen, twenty. Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and vermin destroy, but store up treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust destroys. She'd seen wealthy souls with empty hearts, their riches, a hollow comfort. The material world she realized was fading shadow, a fading shadow. Instead, she turned to the spiritual world where moments felt timeless. The warmth of a friend's embrace echoed in John. Love one another as I have loved you. The peace of forgiving an old wound mirrored in Colossians. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. The joy of helping a stranger reflected in Galatians. Carry each other's burdens and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. These were the threads that wove meaning into life's fragile tapestry. Her brush stirred, she painted a figure at the crossroads, one path glittering with earthly treasures, the other winding towards a radiant horizon where souls glowed with divine light. The figure's face was serene, choosing the glowing path, hands open and giving, not grasping, soft blues and gold swirling, evoking one of First Timothy, six, seventeen, and nineteen, which urges the rich to be rich in good deeds, to take hold of the life that is truly life. The canvas pulse with eternity. She painted through the night. The village slept. The stars her witness. When she finished, the canvas seemed to breathe, not with a weight of gold, but with love, hope, and connection. She hung it in the village square at dawn. No one could pass without pausing. A baker flower-dusted smiled, remembering his daughter's laughter. And Philippians four, four, rejoice in the Lord always. A widow heart-heavy felt peace, recalling Psalm twenty-three, one. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. Even the children sent something sacred as if the colors whispered, well done, good and faithful servant. Her painting told the story, time is short. As James four, fourteen reminds us, you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Chasing material wealth leaves us empty, but investing in the gifts of the spirit world given by God, love, forgiveness, kindness, those treasures in heaven, It's not about grand acts, but small faithful ones, listening deeply, sharing generously, seeking God in the everyday. The village softened after that. People lingered on in conversation, helped freely, and sought stillness inspired by her canvas. She too felt whole, her art a bridge to the eternal. The time would slip away, but as she lived for what lasted, her soul sang. Her days became a living prayer, each moment an offering to one who holds time itself. God Almighty. Seek God first, then the direction from God. When we put God's will be done first, peace and purpose follow. And I think that the lesson in this entire writing is that Honestly, it's God's will be done and not our own. And we need to focus on that. And our lives become a testimony as we live out with honor, with integrity, with doing the right thing every time. Every time. Because we seek God. He literally carries us. It's not our strength. He carries us. And it becomes his work and not our own. Amen. Amen. And what really strikes me with this is I did not plan that. It just sort of happened to go with what you were talking about, about making our time count, focusing on these things like getting in the game and working, doing something and going back to the fundamental law is a huge, huge deal right now. We're in a war. You want to focus on something that has worth instead of playing full time. Educate yourself. Figure it out. Live with honor and integrity. Be a peculiar person that the Bible talks about of coming out of this wretched society that we have and being those people that others can look at as setting the standard. Amen. It needs to happen like you're doing, like so many other people are doing, and not just going along to get along, playing full time, eating cookies and drinking coffees. Right. And this is, I think, where this entire narrative here, and it's not really even narrative, this principle is coming from, which all of us need to ascribe, come and help us. Because those of us who are pro se litigants are right now the only hope as I see it, in action inspired by God to hold people accountable. I don't see another path. I really don't. Right. I agree. So this is fantastic. Well, let me say a prayer right now, and then I'd like to go to last words from you, and then we're going to go about our day. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for the inspiration, for showing us incredible acts throughout history of honor, of integrity, of wisdom, the wisdom that comes from you. We ask that you keep our focus on those things which are of the Spirit, exceptional acts of service, the things that America was founded on, standing for truth and justice for all, individual rights, the things that were built into the Constitution, the original documents and original intent. This isn't the first time this has happened. It's happened over and over. History repeats itself. And you know what? It's amazing you haven't torched us all by now because we deserve it. But with that said, you're amazing, love. You're not like us. You're so far above us. You love us. And you've stayed with us through all of this, throughout time. You've never given up on us. You've never left us and you've never forsaken us. You will rescue a nation for the faith of one person. We thank you so much. And we want to be with you. And we want to be with you. We want to be like you. And those things that matter, that honor, the inspiration and honor and doing the right thing, not falling into the swamp and just being a part of, this horrible, nasty, evil system. We don't want any part of it. So whatever it is you ask us to do, we will stand on your truth. We will stand on your goodness, your strength, your honor, which we can't accomplish by ourselves. It's only through you that there's anything good that comes out of any of us. And we lay that squarely at your feet, saying glory to God in the highest, glory to you alone. Thank you so much for everything and peace and goodwill upon all men. Thank you so much for bearing with us. You've been a great friend to us. We love you. Thank you for the inspiration and the wisdom that you give us. Thank you for the gentle nudge and the, the, the nudge and the words that you, that you give us as we come to you and we talk to you, thank you for the leading and for, for bringing us out of captivity and showing us by, a perfect life through Jesus Christ, our Lord and savior, your only begotten son who died in order that we may have relationship with you. And through his resurrection proved that he was worthy and his worthiness. We can accept as a gift. Thank you so much for everything. We love you so very much in the name of Jesus Christ. We pray. Amen. Amen. So last words, Daniel. Um, There's a lot to do, and I'm just proud to be part of the process. I'm so honored to know you. I mean, what a God moment that moment we met. And I couldn't believe it. I just couldn't believe it when I met you. Talk about God sending someone to me who was doing what I was kind of doing, but that had so much more knowledge to help teach myself and everyone out there. the finer points of the law and how to do this. Yourself, Troy Smocks, there's so many people that are doing it right now that are joining this army of pro se litigants. And I invite everyone to join us. As the chairman of the Taxpayers Party, which is the Constitution Party in Michigan, I ask everyone to please get involved. Get involved with people such as Daniel. the Constitution Party, which in Michigan, it's the only one that hasn't taken money, that hasn't bit the federal money, the dark money, the state money, any of it. It's absolutely been clean on all points. And I'm for abolishing all parties, including the one that I'm the chairman of. We need to go back to a better system of honor and integrity. But we use the weapons that are in front of us, the weapons of our enemy in order to right things. If somebody drops a sword, pick it up. And I'm not saying grab your torches and pitchforks. Grab the weapons that they've used against us and trust law and the bad law, the pretended law that's out there. Pick it up and beat them with it in a court of law. You can do that. And that's all that needs to be said. So with that said, everybody, let's end the show. Go to brandenburgforgovernor.com because I'm the best non-conceiver who's ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. And I'd like a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump. Cowboy boots. Who wears them better? I win. And we have a discussion. It's going to be great. And talk about the things that matter. Go about your day. Paint this world in the beauty of what God's put in your heart. We all have it follow his leading Let him inspire you let him lay a path up and then ask him for the strength and the courage to walk that path If you think you can't do it, you're right You can't do it within your own strength, but we can do all do we can do anything We can do all things as we walk forward in Christ Almighty, because it's His strength. It's His wisdom. It's His discernment. It's not ours. It's only through Him that we can prevail. And that's the starting point right there. Turn to God, ask Him to help you, and accept the gift of Jesus Christ. And all of a sudden, the world changes. He's going to start talking to you because you will have that path to walk with Him on this earth. It's possible. So with that said, I love you all. Thank you so much, all of you for joining. I see the names like Lynn, who was at my barn last night in the chat. Curtis is here. Denise is here. You know, the regulars. David is here. M.I. Spencer is here. It's interesting. We're all working on this together and we're learning together every day. It's a great process. You don't have to know everything. You're never going to know everything. I'm never going to know everything. We just have to start walking and continue to walk and grow and say, wow, I'm a new person today. I learned more things today. It doesn't mean we were stupid before that. It just means more information came forward to be educated. And that's the perspective we should all be. We should be a different person every day as we work towards the, the, the goal of where God has our life going. It's okay. And it's going to be okay. So God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Tomorrow I have John Tater on at nine o'clock and then Mike Bambus again. And the, these, the pro se stuff is just blowing up. It's going, it is incredible to not only see this and be part of it. And, uh, And it's a lot of fun. Stay on the line, Daniel. We'll see you guys all tomorrow.