Published Dec. 17, 2024, 9:01 a.m.
9am Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Change of schedule X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1MnxnDQQRmYGO Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6054ge-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-12172024-lawful-defense-john-tatar.html https://rumble.com/v6053tw-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-12172024-lawful-defense-john-tatar.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2024-12-17-lawful-defense-john-tatar:c https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it is the seventeenth day of December twenty twenty four. Welcome to our show today. So today we had a little bit of a change of plans. General Flynn is supposed to be on here as well as John Ferguson. Well, John's moved to tomorrow and General Flynn is down in, I believe, North Carolina working on the damage down there. And I'm sure getting things figured out a little bit because that's what he does. And, you know, it's like a And my well wishes for everyone wherever there is tragedy. You know, there's so much tragedy in the United States right now. It's incredible. And we just have to stay focused and stay calm no matter what happens. Whatever storm is up there, stay calm. But with that said, I'm going to go to John Tater, and we're going to do lawful defense today. Hey, John, what's happening? Good morning. I see you had your guitar with you today. I thought I'd do a little kind of Christmas parody here. Okay. So what are we doing here today, sir? Well, we shall talk about the rule of law, I think. That's what we should talk about. Okay. That sounds like a good plan. Because, you know, there are rules and even, you know, the rules that God gives us out there. Rules are to keep everyone safe and to keep people living in peace. Because we don't always do the right thing. Human beings are highly flawed. So I think that to have written rules or or what we can and we can't do, honestly ensures us having peace in the land and being able to live together in harmony. That's right. That's what it's all about. And some people think it's just like, oh, no, God's being mean. Somebody's being mean to me. It's like, no, because you probably wouldn't want somebody to do things to you. So if you have an agreement... on what behavior is, then everybody knows what the agreement is and you can live in peace in a civilization. That's why the attorneys write the laws so we don't understand them. I don't think they understand them. Have you talked to many attorneys? Well, yeah. You know my take on attorneys. Yeah, they do great as long as they got their nose in a book. But once they come out of the nose in the book, you know, just pray. They don't even do good with a nose in a book. Yeah, practical application kind of escapes them. That's right. They don't even read the law. They don't know what the law is. They know what the bar says the law is. And those of you, and we talk about graduation, when you graduate, that's commencement. That means that's where you start to learn. And they stop learning once they get out of law school. Well, it's all about gaming the law and gaming the system and winning at all costs instead of winning or making sure that justice is done. That's not part of our system at all. It's who crawls to the top, who climbs over people, who hurts others in order for us to get to the blue ribbon at the finish line. That's the mentality. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Yeah. The gun to six-year-olds running around. Anyhow, what's your song here today, sir? All right, let's do my song. Do you know Romney and Cheney and Crimestop and Waters? Shifty and Sherman and many others. But can you recall the greatest sleazebag of all? Loewe the commie resident, puppet of the CCP. And if you ever saw him, You swear he was on THC All of the other Democrats Wondered how he got his blow Hunter's laptop computer Was all you ever needed to know Then one foggy Christmas day Santa came to say with your nose so red won't you help me guide my sled that's how the police found him hanging there in effigy joey the commie resident you're a mindless sob Bravo. That's fun. How long does it take you to write a song like that? Well, if I do a parody, sometimes not too long, but sometimes, you know, it's the thought, how can I put it together? So it's the put together part that, you know, make things rhyme and fit. So sometimes it takes a while. Very cool. Okay, you got another song? Yeah, I can do another one. Okay, let's do another song. You better not shout. You better not cry. Grab you some rope. I'm telling you why. President Trump is coming to town. He's making a list already made. Those that are on it best be afraid. President Trump is coming to town. He knows that you've been cheating, traitors, everyone. He knows who's friends with the CCP. He has the magic wand. You better turn state and swallow your pride. The white hats are coming for all your hides. President Trump is coming to town. The bankers now interned men, they'll have a jubilee. We're gonna hang all you usurpers on the Capitol Christmas tree. And the election was rigged, your future is cast. The law is coming, they're after your ass. President Trump is coming to town. What a great way to start the day off with. That's awesome. So what are we talking about today? Well, I think what we should start with is the law. What is the law? Why, who wrote the law and what is the law? And what we have to remember and what we have to really know is that the intent of the law is the law. It's not what the judges think it should say. It's not what the politicians think it should say. It's the intent of the law. So you got to go back to history when you start talking about the law and when you start talking about the Constitution. You have to go back to why was that amendment originally established. You can't say that, well, the Fourteenth Amendment, and this is what they use, and I'm going to bring this out to anchor babies. If you look at the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment basically says, Article Two, Fourteenth Amendment here it is. The Fourteenth Amendment basically says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Does that mean when you are born in the United States, no matter who you are, if you were born of illegal aliens, that when you're born in the United States, you become a citizen? Is that what that means? What was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment and when was it written? Can you give me a, do you know offhand? No. Okay. Fourteenth Amendment was, came after the Civil War. And what was it written for the purpose of what? It was the purpose of turning people that were considered slaves into citizens. That's basically what the law was written for. The law was written if you were born in the United States, you were a citizen or you were a slave, but you were born in the United States, then you could be, and or naturalized, then you would be a citizen of the United States. And the words here are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That means you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Doesn't mean that if you are born in the United States and you are a subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning that you are a subject to the ten square miles of Washington, D.C., which a lot of so-called lowercase patriots, we call them the lowercase patriots because they think they know what they're talking about, but most of them don't because they didn't do their homework. They don't understand. Excuse me. And so they come up with these stories that if you're a subject to the ten square miles of the United States, then Congress can do make laws that are that are can be enforced upon the citizens. That's not what that says. What that says is if you are born in the United States, you are subject to the ten square mile jurisdiction, you are not subject to Washington. You're not subject to the jurisdiction of Washington. And that ten square miles, that has nothing to do with it. That's a totally different Totally different can of worms that people have opened up. So they come up with this. Well, you've got to give up your citizenship to the United States. Well, if you do that, then you're a citizen of what country? You're a citizen. Oh, I'm a citizen of the state of Michigan and not a subject to the United States. No, no, you're a subject to the United States as the Constitution says more in more than one place that citizens of this country, that's of the United States, and not the ten square miles of the corporate United States. That's a bunch of crap. The law is the law. Why was this law written? This law was written to bring in slavery and to end slavery and to end any kind of questionable people that were born in the United States at that time period. They were subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and if they were naturalized citizens, they could be a naturalized citizen of the United States. It doesn't mean that if you are born in the United States by an illegal parent, then you become a citizen. That's anchor baby crap, and that's what it is. It's crap. It doesn't fit the Fourteenth Amendment at all. So that's part of it. What is the law and what is the intent of the law when the law was written? Not what is the intent of the law today? Constitution is not a live document. It's a dead document. It doesn't change with time as time goes on. In order to change it, you have to amend it. There is no flow of this document then. Well, we live now in a day when we have cars, so life is different. So the Constitution bends to that. No, it doesn't bend to that at all. It's a dead document. It's a document that says what it says, when it's said, and the intent of the law is the law. And that's what a lot of people don't understand. A lot of judges don't understand. A lot of politicians twist the law because it fits their agenda. It doesn't fit the Constitution. It doesn't fit America. It fits their agenda. And so we have to understand what the intent of the law is. The intent of the Second Amendment, excuse me, and the Supreme Court took it all the way back to the seventeen hundreds and said people could build guns back in the seventeen hundreds. And therefore, today, you can't prevent guns from being built. Because back in the seventeen hundreds, people were doing that. That was normal. That was a normal behavior. Selling and buying guns. That was a normal behavior back when the law was written. And so we go back to the intent of the law. And that's exactly what we do when we talk about the Fourteenth Amendment. We go to the intent of the law. So if we go on to the rest of that, Section one of article fourteen and I'll read at the beginning again. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So do you have to throw out your American citizenship or United States citizenship and say I'm a citizen of the state of Michigan? No. Second Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment already states that if you're born in the United States or naturalized, that you are a citizen of both the United States and the state of Michigan in our case. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And here the courts, and the courts, as I think it was Jefferson that said the... Republic will be destroyed or will be led to its destruction by the court system. And that's exactly what's going on. We have a court system that's rogue in our government. The court system is the system that is creating the problems. They have created the civil action jurisdiction back in thirty three. by the Supreme Court and therefore the civil action jurisdiction has this ability for judges to basically steal money from the public for crimes against the state. You can't have a crime against the state. There's no, there is no, um, nobody hurt, no injury. There is no property damage. And therefore you can't for speeding on the street. You can't, uh, create a, a, an offense for that or driving without a, uh, or driving or traveling. without a driver's license. Traveling is of right and a privilege is not a privilege, it's a right. And so when you travel, you do not have to have a license because a license is only used to regulate commerce. And if you're not in commerce, if you're not driving somebody around the neighborhood for a fee as an Uber driver, or you're not hauling goods to a different location, then you're not in commerce. You're traveling from point A to point B. And government cannot regulate traveling. Why is it that nobody actually ever got into questioning the civil action jurisdiction? Does this make you wonder what happened, what steps were taken that at that point when the law changed, that nobody questioned it? I think that was in the year of the war. Remember, whenever they have a war, we lose our rights, we lose some rights. And that was right in the neighborhood of the wartime. And though we were not physically in the United States in war, War was around us. War started in, what, in the year of the Germans, but the buildup for the war was going on in the year of the Germans. We were just after World War I, not that long of a stretch after World War I into World War II, and a lot of turmoil was going on. You know, my father who lived in Poland as a kid, he was an American citizen because he was born in America where the father and mother were both citizens of naturalized citizens. So he was a citizen of the United States. But they went back to Poland because my grandfather thought he was somebody important in Poland and he wasn't very important in America. So he went back to Poland to be that important person. And my father grew up in Poland in all that turmoil. And when he came here, this was the greatest country on earth. He could care less about the government. He was not tuned in. And in fact, it was the last ten years of his life that I tried to finally persuade him that the Republicans are criminals and the Democrats are criminals. They all work together. Yes, yes. However, I've got to give credit where credit's due. I get a newsletter from MCRGO. Let me see if I say their name right here. It's Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. They were calling out, too, that the Michigan House failed to pass firearms legislation on a rare Friday session last week. Early in the evening, Republicans walked off the House floor in disgust at the unprecedented partisan abuse of the lame duck session. Unity within the House Democrat caucus broke down shortly thereafter with moderates, including Representative Nate Shannon of Sterling Heights and Peter Herzberg, Tulio LaRoddy, from Alan Park, Karen Whiteset, indicating they had had enough. This is important because Article IV, Section XXVI of the Michigan Constitution requires that no bill shall be passed or become a law at any regular session of the legislature until It has been printed and reproduced and in the possession of each house for at least five days. Remember that. You know how many laws they're passing here? They're breaking the law every time they do that. But the thing I've got to say is I'm very, very pleased that the Republicans actually walked out and effectively stopped this thing cold in its tracks this past week. And so bravo to them. The Senate is scheduled the next day for Monday, December twenty three, and it's unlikely to have enough members in Lansing that day to pass party line bills due to family Christmas events. So this is this is amazing. The bills that they tried to ram through were Firearms Industry Responsibility Act House Bill six one eight three six one eight four six one eight five weakening the local government preemption House Bill four one nine eight domestic violence part two. House Bill, six, one, three, four, six, one, three, five, felony penalties for attempted illegal purchase. House, look at that. That was pretty, pretty horrible. House Bill, six, two, two, two, six, two, two, three, and colored gun ban sale. Senate Bill, one, one, three, four, and imitation gun ban. Senate Bill, one, one, three, five. What I do know is I think they were, oh man, there's even more of these. Capital and legislative offices carry ban Senate Bill eight five seven eight five eight house or home fire home built firearms ghost gun ban. Senate Bill one one four nine and one one five. Oh, bump stock man. Senate Bill nine four two. No cell list. Ten eighty six. And it just kind of keeps going on and on and on. This is what they tried to ram through in that lame duck session. And I just have to say thank you to every single Republican House member who walked out of this calling attention to it and just saying this is nonsense and it's illegal what they're doing. I mean, what they're doing, every single one of these is unconstitutional. Well, what should be happening is all of those so-called Democrats, if you want to call them Democrats, or all of those that have pushed for this bill need to resign and or be kicked out of office. Absolutely. And the people have to be able to do that. So the people really need to know who these turkeys are that are in there pushing these bills. They're the ones that need to get kicked out of office. If you were going to go after them in a lawful manner, how would you remove them? What would, what would you do to remove them for even suggesting these type of bills? Well, the elections happen every two years, so that's one way. The second way is to do a recall on them. I know the recall takes a long time and sometimes is ineffective, but if enough people get together and push forth a recall, they're going to get the message that they are stepping outside their delegated authority. And a lot of them may change their mind at that point in time and become more responsible for the Republic. Is there any way to sue them on a personal level for removing them? How do you do that? You just file a lawsuit on them individually for violating your personal rights. But when you do that, you be sure that you write the lawsuit in such a way that it says individual rights or individuals not I'm suing you as a senator I'm suing you as an individual because you violated the law as an individual what are what are the grounds though I mean they they proposed a bill but what are the grounds because it's unconstitutional I mean what would you say you are violating my rights to the second amendment uh I even suggested it huh By even suggesting it or bringing a bill forward. By bringing a bill forward, you're violating my rights. Do you have to pass the bill in order to violate my rights? Or do you have to just say you're going to violate my rights? Well, it's a threat if they say they're going to violate your rights. It's like if you threaten somebody's life, then you can be held responsible for threatening somebody's life. If you threaten them in public, then you can be held for liable because you've threatened them in public. Whether you get anywhere with it, whether you get your three, four, ten million dollars for them violating your Constitution, the Constitution and your rights. I don't like to say constitutional rights because you don't have any constitutional rights. You have God-given rights that are protected by the Constitution. So we got to make that fairly clear. We do not have constitutional rights, but you violated the law, which is the Constitution and the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is very clear. It says, shall not be infringed. It doesn't say we can adjust control regulate any of that. Not that can't be done. None of that. So the second amendment is very clear that if you violate the second amendment in any form of, in any way by passing any kind of law, then, uh, you are alive, you can be held liable. And, and you hired this person as your representative to go to Lansing and to do that, to do, to, uh, Take care of your bidding so you don't have to go to Lansing. Remember, we have a republic. That's why we hire these people. These people are our hirees. They're not the bosses. They're not the leaders. They're not any of those things. They're public functionaries. They have a function in government. And that function is to do what you ask them to do, to do your bidding. And if they don't do your bidding, what happens when you hire a maid and you tell the maid to clean the kitchen? The maid says, I didn't feel like cleaning it today, so I'll do it on another day. What would you do? Would you say, okay, no problem. I'll do it on another day. You'd say, get the heck out of my house. Don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out. And that's exactly how we need to deal with these public functionaries that are in office that violate the Constitution, which is the law that protects our rights from God. So that's how we need to take this attitude and we need to sue them. And you don't sue them for a couple of dollars. You sue them for ten million at least because they're violating. There is no limit on how much you can sue them for. You can sue them for, you know, ten million, twenty million, thirty million dollars. The problem is if you sue them for too much, then sometimes you get to court and the jury feels bad about you trying to get eighty million dollars out of a congressman for violating the law. So you want to be within reason. So one, two, three million dollars, that will get their attention. And whether you win, draw, or lose in court, The fact of the matter is you bring them up on charges and they have to argue those charges or overcome those charges. Sometimes they can't do it. Sometimes you just drag them through the mud and that may be where they have to be dragged through. Yeah, well, I think that all of these bills are, quite honestly, they're still on the table. I don't think it stopped them. I think it just stopped them temporarily. You know, they're going to come back with this. So quite honestly, I think every single one of these people that was involved in this, the failure of these bills to pass was a major defeat for the gun control lobby and Attorney General Dana Nessel. And so they are still pushing this. Well, it didn't put on the lawsuit, too. They should. She should be put on. Dana Nessl should probably be the most sued person in the state of Michigan for violations. Sure she should. Absolutely. She is the top cop in Michigan. Well, she's the most effective low cop because she doesn't do a damn thing that's right. Well, that's the point. That's why we need to go after her and every lawsuit that goes down. If you sue Joe, Senator Joe... Schmidt or whatever, you put her also on the lawsuit for the same reason. She belongs to this gun coalition, whatever, gun control coalition. You know what the Democrats and the deep state and the ugly evil people are trying to do? They're trying to disarm us because if they can disarm us, then they can take us over just like they did in Australia. The concern I have, it's just like even going after ghost guns or the guns that you can print at home. They're even trying to say that if you have the plans in your possession, that you are violating the law. See, that's a bunch of crap. That's a bunch of commie nonsense right there. They're a bunch of communists. Because if we go back to the intent of the law... where that's the way they had made guns back in the seventeen hundreds if we go back to the intent of the law and the second amendment was built to protect the sec to protect the building of guns back in the second amendment uh the supreme court has already ruled and said you can't do that You can have these so-called ghost guns, which that's such a stupid name for them. These guns are homemade guns. That's all they are. They are guns that are built by citizens like me and you. And sometimes, you know, I like doing that kind of stuff. I like putting puzzles together. So I like those kinds of things. I wouldn't have a problem buying the parts and making the thing work. And that's kind of the fun part. People like doing it with cars. People like doing it on building houses or doing building shelving and and other types of construction. And what's the difference? It's a gun. So you learn to put it together and how it works and what makes it work. And the government has no authority of any kind to stop that. Well, and I tell you, I grew up with firearms, and I'm going to correct anybody, never call them a weapon. They're not a weapon. They're firearms. And I think that that's something that people honestly need to remember. Your words count. And I don't know. It's not a weapon. It is a firearm. There's a difference. And I grew up, we shot on Sundays a lot of times. We would go out and just do it for fun. Yeah, we'd get cans and bottles of water. And yeah, we used to do it too. Milk jugs. Yeah. As a young kid, my father bought us a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cans and and stuff like that uh and it was it was a lot of fun I like shooting clay pigeons too I thought that was a lot of fun we used to do that and I did that as a scout but I didn't do that much after being a scout so oh yeah I thought that was pretty fun to do that it was fun Yeah, I still like doing it. I really do. You know, I enjoy it. It's just one of those things that it checks your skill and it is a skill. I think everybody should be trained in it. Quite honestly, if we based our system just like how Switzerland has their system, that everyone is part of it. You have to have training and maintain training. And if you don't, then you pay a tax that way for your neighbors defending you. And that and I think that's a great idea that everyone there should be like a there should be a community range in every in every community. And when I was up at Grayling, I got to watch how they how they trained our soldiers up there with with mainly they were doing it with lasers and such on all the guns. And I asked him how much it cost to outfit a range with that. It really wasn't that expensive. But they have them pneumatically rigged up so that you can even feel like the kick from the guns and such. And so it was like, and then everybody has to have a certain number on the range of a certain number of hours on the range before they get to handle live ordinance, which saves so much money. It's just incredibly cost effective. And I really think that we should have that for the state of Michigan. I really do. It's a great idea. Well, like I say, when I was in high school, there was an ROTC program and I used to go after school every single day and fire . of Cody High School. That's where I went to school. We had a range down there. It was the ROTC range. And I shot in target practice. And I actually won top ten in the city shooting rifles. That's awesome. Thank you. Then when I went to the Army, Uh, I joined the rifle team in the army and I won several awards in shooting in the army and the fourth, and then I got picked up on the fourth army rifle team. And it was because of my training in high school and, and my, uh, love for shooting way back when I was a young kid. So what happened after world war II, everybody and anybody could own a weapon could own a weapon, firearm, could own a rifle or a pistol or whatever. And we had all kinds of abilities to, and it was called a DCM, Department of Civilian Marksmanship, that you could send your paperwork to. And the paperwork was, are you an American citizen? Do you shoot rifles? Have you been on a rifle team? So on and so forth. And they'd send you an M-one grand. for a nominal amount of money back then I think I paid ninety dollars for it uh today that rifle is worth twenty five hundred dollars uh so that was a like a good investment hey check this out I didn't even know that this was a thing so I didn't know this was still in operation I had no idea what check this out Civilian Marksmanship Program. Yes. It's now CPM or it's called something else. It's not DCM, Department of Civilian Marksmanship. This is a different program. Yeah, this program still exists. Rifles, pistols are a lot more money. And you have to sometimes even get into a drawing because they don't give that many away or don't sell that many. They don't give them away. They sell them, but you can get involved with the civilian marksmanship program. That's interesting. Yeah, it's a good program. I didn't even know that that was a thing, so I'm glad you brought it up. But the point was that after World War II, everybody needed to be able to shoot and arm. And we had military. I remember when I went into the military, that was one of the prerequisites that you could shoot a rifle because some of those people in basic training that were going to head for Vietnam, didn't know which end of the rifle to point down range. I mean, they were really some of them were really bad, and then they couldn't hit the target. And because I was a pretty good shooter at that time, I was actually told to help my neighbor who was shooting next to me because he couldn't hit the target so they put the two shooters that couldn't hit the target one to my right and one to my left and they give me an extra amount of ammunition and they'd say I want you to shoot your target and then I want you to shoot to the right and shoot to the left and help them pass their requirement so they could graduate from basic training And so I was doing this kind of thing. Uh, back then it was for me, it was a lot of fun because I got to shoot a lot of bullets, uh, especially the night fire that they had. That was really exciting. Um, and I remember going through basic training when you left the range, you had to say no brass, no ammo, sir. Uh, and, um, You'd carry your rifle, no brass, no ammo. And they'd say, okay, go on. And you'd go to put your rifle away and everything was locked up so you couldn't get to it. And before night fire, the day or two before night fire, we were told don't shoot but a couple of bullets. So here we are on the range. There's thirty of us on the range ready to shoot. And the command to fire is given by the tower and you could hear bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And that was it. Like everybody had ten rounds. There were thirty people. That should have been a lot of shooting. But we were told to keep the ammo, put the ammo in our pockets and shoot them. So as we ran off the range, I'm jingling like jingle bells, running off the range with all my pockets full of bullets. And I'm saying, no brass, no ammo, sir. And I move on. And everybody else was doing the same. So that night, we got together and loaded all the magazines. And when I went on range, instead of getting my normal two magazines, I got ten magazines. And I was told to help the guy on the right and help the guy on the left. So I was shooting like crazy. I was shooting my own bullets for me, and then I was shooting for the left and the right to help them pass their night fire range so they could graduate from basic training. I don't know whatever happened to them. Some of them went out to Vietnam. They still couldn't shoot, but they graduated from basic. Well, that's interesting. Yeah, I think that we should have that in all of our communities. You should be proficient in the operation of firearms. And there's a lot to know. While you were brought up. Or we should have been brought up with it. I mean, that's American, that's the American trade, the American, uh, and, and this thing about, you know, I don't let my kid have guns, my twelve-year-old or ten-year-old or whatever, can't have guns, can't have guns. So when he becomes twenty-five years old and he buys a gun and never, never shot one before, what does that do for him? yeah well and I I'm gonna I'm gonna say this flat out here is that for all the ladies out there the first time you buy a firearm buy it from another woman because you know what happens when guys want to get their girls a a firearm this is what happened they're like yeah my girl can grab it and they grab the biggest pistol that you can't even get your grip it's like my girl can do this and then they give you this pistol that's like that's like the size of it you know the size of a I don't know mac truck and you can't get your hand around the thing and uh and ask me how I know some of this is that experience counts but that's what that's what all the guys do yeah she could handle it we're gonna get a really big firearm here and and that and it's like no that's a really bad plan start out small with a smaller firearm lady so that you're comfortable with the with the uh the kick and you you know you know what the recoil is going to be on it. Because if you start shooting something that's really, really large and you've got really small hands, you're going to be kind of surprised. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's true. Of course, if you go to a gun range, if you're looking for a handgun and you go to a gun range, there are a whole lot of options in there and you can stand at the at the counter and you can grab this gun and feel what it's like and then try this one. And is it too heavy, too light? And so you have an opportunity to, and then you can say, oh, I like this. I like the way this one feels. Let me go shoot it inside the range over there. And you can go and shoot and see what the recoil is. And a lot of people that work at those gun ranges, they know what gun would work best for you. And they will steer you in the right direction. I think that it's more important for accuracy than, you know, if I know there's two trains of thought on this, that there's accuracy, shooting for accuracy and such. I kind of think that if you start out with a smaller caliber and you get really comfortable with it and then increase accuracy, increase the caliber and the size of the firearm. Especially I'd say that for women, because I do talk to several women or, and once, once somebody gets kind of freaked out by, by shooting a larger firearm, it's hard to get them past that again. So if you start out with a smaller firearm and just get yourself real comfortable with it, and then add some, add some, add some beef to the back end of it. But that's just my opinion. It depends. Yeah, I agree with you. I actually carry a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . You don't need to have a . . . in your possession in order to do that if you're looking for protection, self-protection. Sometimes if you pull that, that's enough. Sometimes if you just show it on your belt, that's enough. You don't have to go into any further discussion about it. So you just got to understand what it's all about. I took martial arts for a long time and did get my black belt. But one of the most important parts of martial arts is know your surroundings. Know what's behind you. Know what's in front of you. Know where you're walking, what you're doing. Have some idea. Don't walk blindly into an area because if you do that, then you're looking for trouble. So know your surroundings. If you know your surroundings, you eliminate a lot of the problems that you would normally have, that you would normally encounter. Situational awareness. Yes. And so that was one thing martial arts was very, very good about teaching. Know your surroundings. Know what's going on around you. And it protects you. Protects you. So... Yes, I agree with you that you need to go through the process of trying, starting with something small, getting a little accurate with it and understanding how it works. The most important part is the cleaning and maintenance of that pistol or that rifle, how to take it apart, how to clean it. what type of oil or whatever you're going to use on it. Just the very basic understanding of how the thing works. You don't need to know how every single gear in there works or every single movement in there works. But you have to have some idea of how the thing works and how much and how so you can rely upon that when you have to. Otherwise, you have problems. I would love to see more people who have the skill of being a gunsmith because that's quite a valuable skill to have, and there's not enough people that are doing it, quite honestly. Well, the point of the matter is that in shooting a pistol or a rifle, if you build one of those, That's almost as good as being a gunsmith. You're obviously not doing the technical end and cutting it on a lathe and doing that kind of stuff, but you got the parts. You know what part goes here and what part goes there, and therefore you build that pistol or that rifle, and you have some understanding of how that mechanism of that gun that you're working on works. And so you're not necessarily a gunsmith, but you have a good understanding of the gun, which is a good thing. I just had somebody drop a link here. I think it's Ralph. Ralph is always watching. So he makes sure that we stand straight and narrow here. Let's put this up for a second. Let's see what we have. We have a... Japanese gal at a gun range, I believe. First time this woman has been to a gun range and what happens. Let's see, I'm going to go forward. She's going to the gun range. I think I will put that on the channel so that everybody can see what that would, it's probably gonna be very amusing. It could be, could be. So one more thing I wanted to point out before we're done with our show today here is that all law that exists exists together at the same time. No law exists in a vacuum. And our public functionaries, especially some of the non-elected bureau rats that are in office, those people seem to feel that they could parse out a part of the law. We're going to take this part of the law and we're going to use it against you. The law all works together at the same time. So if there's a part in the law that gives you a certain thing to do, and another part of the law that gives you another part to do, you have to put them both together before you can say, this is what the law, this is the intent of the law. One of the big arguments is when the IRS sends out a document called a notice of lien. If you've ever seen one, if you haven't, you ought to see one, get a hold of one. They eliminate part A on the notice of lien on the backside of the lien. If you look at the backside of the lien, which is the law, they eliminate the first part. Why do they eliminate the first part? Because they're hiding something. They are hiding the fact that they have no authority to put a lien on a private citizen. And that's what part A states. It lays out who can be liened. And it is government officials that they call them. I'm using their language. It is people that work for the government in one form or another. corporations and elected officials, that's it. So if you don't fit into those categories, They can't put a lien on you. That's the first part of who can be liened. And I'll need to pull that up one day and read it and show it to you. And maybe next week I can do that, but I don't have it handy. Yeah, let's do that next week because that's kind of interesting. I never heard that. Yeah, they eliminate part A. And the second part says pretty much what a lien is and who's getting the lien and so on and so forth. But it never says who specifically gets a lien or doesn't get a lien. That's part A, which is eliminated. So I will see if I can pull up a document that my documents that have, because I have had those in the past. And of course, when you go to court and you argue that point, they kind of, that doesn't count. This is the part of the law that counts. No, no, no, that's not the part. The whole law counts from A through E. Yeah, you just can't pick and choose. You can't pick and choose because if you could pick and choose, you could put everybody in jail because there's something everybody has done that can be parsed out individually And therefore, that person can end up in jail or end up paying fines for something that really isn't the law. It's their twist of the law. And the government, and especially the court system, court system's great for twisting the law. They call it due process. You go into court and you speak. And that means it's due process. But the judge isn't listening to you. The prosecutor isn't answering your arguments and you are as a defendant and they're all over there doing, I don't hear you. I don't hear you. I don't know what you're saying. and then they rule against you, and they call that due process. That's form, the due process of form. It's not true due process where you have the arguments and the rebuttals, the arguments from the individual defendant and the prosecutor arguing back and forth to come to a solution. no matter if the heavens will fall, whatever the law is. But when you go to court, especially when you go to traffic court, who do you argue with? You're arguing with the judge, not the prosecutor, not the cop. The cop says his thing, the prosecutor says his thing, and then the judge takes over. And he's the one that you argue against. That's not his job. His job is to be the referee so you don't get into a fistfight over this. And you're supposed to be able to have a legitimate argument between the defendant and the prosecutor so you can actually come to a solution, a logical, lawful, proper solution. But they don't do that in court. If you ever go to court, if you're ever in the court, you'll see that the person you're talking to is the judge. The judge is the one that's making the decision. That's not his job. His job is a referee. His job is to listen to both sides, know the law on the right, know the law on the left, and come up with a decision. Pretty simple. Oh, yeah, it is simple. It is a simple task. That's a good thing. It is simple because... But nobody's doing the right thing. Most judges are ignorant of the law. So I want to go back to the suing these people who brought those gun bills forward. Is there an outline or something that you have or could put together to show how to approach this? Well, I kind of sent you one a long time ago. I don't remember when it was. I've got all kinds of stuff from you, so yeah. I sent you a kind of an outline, a layout. But yeah, I could probably go back and find it. I'm certain I've written it all. Let me see. I'm going to bring your folder up here because I've got all your laws and such in your folder. Hang on a minute. Oh, man. Let's see. Well, let me see if I can find it for next week, and I'll pull it out. Yeah, because I think that that would be outstanding to actually look at this. You should see my John Tater file. I've got a huge John Tater file. Here we go. And is it – let's see. It was probably brought up under traffic. Leanne – Is it Leanne? Is that one? It could be. Stafford Hills? That had to do with the COVID business. Yeah. So I guess I'd like to see how you would approach this. Because, man, if we got a whole bunch of people out there suing the ever-living daylights out of these people, we might actually be able to put a stop there. Well, it's the people that want to do something about it. And the problem is we have a lot of small-cased patriots that are not interested in learning the law, interested in learning they are out there doing the doing the research on computers, but they're not researching what the Republic is. They're researching other nonsense, such as the all caps names, the straw man, all that other stuff. All the distractions. The distractions. That's right. And they try to go into court with those distractions and they lose. I really think that there's a lot of people that would like to do this, but they kind of need a little bit of shepherding along the process. Not that they need somebody to do the process, but they need somebody to call in order to help them have the confidence to do that. I really do, because it is such a convoluted mess of nonsense. But I think that would be a worthy thing to do, you know? um if it were a not a full service but something where people could honestly have someone to uh shepherd them through it well you know one maybe we could put a couple of our programs together uh for maybe a month or so and go through the process of putting a document together I think that would be great because we really need to walk people through this process so that they can see exactly, okay, this is how you start with a headline. Now let's get the form correct and then put some things in here. I mean, I'd be willing to do that is go through this and then people could look at this. And I mean, honestly, if we had a whole bunch of us out there that were attacking this, I think we could win, but we're only going to win if everybody works on something together. We can't do it any other way. But this is a process that has got to be set up in such a way that you not only write the document, but you understand what the document says. Understood. Because a lot of people will write a document and say, because they've done the paperwork, they'll give it to the court and they'll expect the court to do it. And then they don't have the understandings or the working knowledge of what this document is. We have several people in our group that went after a speeding ticket, for example, not necessarily speeding, but something in the court system. And they actually came over to my house several times and practice what to say, how to say it so they wouldn't get twisted around because it's very easy for the court system. And the judges are very good at this. They've been at it. They've been at it, some of them, for twenty years and all thirty years, how to twist your and lead you down the wrong path. lead you into a rabbit hole that you can't get out so they can collect their fee. And that's what this is all about. This is their fee collectors. They're not judges to practice law. They're there to collect money from you. That's all this is about. So- Extortionists. Yeah, extortionists. So the problem is what will you do as an individual to stay on task to be able to fight your battle. We had one person that went to court and that person sent the documents to the police officer and to the judge and to the prosecutor and the And we had demanded an answer. And that's one of the Michigan court rules that if you demand an answer, they must answer. So this person says, well, they didn't answer. And I says, well, then you go into court and you argue. The only thing you argue is that they're in default. That's it. You don't go any further than that. We cannot go step two until we correct the default. And what happened? That person argued about, oh, the police officer did this, the police officer did that. The police officer was hiding around the corner. Why would you do that? They didn't answer it. It's a default. And that's the end of the argument. And so because that person opened the door, so to speak, and allowed everything and anything to come in, they lost. Because that's the way the game is played. We're going to twist you and make you say something you didn't want to say. Or in one case, somebody was in court and mentioned that she was driving. Why would you do that? You're not driving, you're traveling. You've lost. The minute you opened your mouth and said driving, you lost. You didn't have to go any further. At that point in time, pack up your stuff and get out and take your punishment. There you go. That's the kind of stuff that we have to be sure that when people file documents, that they file documents understanding what the document is and how to fight the battle. Because otherwise, you're going to get in front of a court with Dana Nessel, who's been learning how to lie all of her life. And she's good at it. And she's good at twisting people. And therefore, I mean, the prime example is the J-Six people. The Democrats have been doing that for years and years and years when the Republicans won, sending delegates forward. And all of a sudden, we have this J-Six group of people that send delegates forward and they're in jail or being prosecuted for going to jail. take the law and you twist it one way or the other and they don't know how to fight it. They hire attorneys and the attorneys are not in there to win. The attorneys are there to see how much money they can collect. And if you haven't figured that out at this point in time, we can't help you. You're thirty years old or forty years old. I'm sorry. You ain't got it together. You can't go. Well, sir, you want to give a plug to your meeting this week? Oh, yes. We have a Zoom tomorrow night. Again, if you want to come to our Zoom, show up by going to our website, which is MagnificentRepublic.com. And it'll give you the insight as to how to come to our meeting. Be sure you read and look at some of the stuff that's on there. to kind of give you some idea of what we're all about. Don't just come cold to the meeting because then you're going to be totally confused. I mean, we're we're talking about Downs versus Bidwell, which is a Supreme Court case, and we're halfway into the reading. So if you pop in and you start listening and you don't have Downs versus Bidwell in your possession, then you're going to totally you're not going to have any idea what we're talking about. But Go to the website, read the website. My phone number should be posted there. If it isn't, you could write a note. You can call me at seven, three, four, nine, six, eight, four, seven, one, five, and ask me to send you Downs versus Midwell. I'll send you the case and get you prepared so you don't come to the meeting lost. And then you can learn some stuff, some very, very, very critical stuff. Very cool. Well, I'm looking forward to the next time we sit down. So I'm not sure if we're going to do it next week or the following week, though. Next week is Christmas Eve. So maybe we postpone this a little bit so that we enjoy the holidays a little bit. What do you think about this? That sounds fine. Yeah. And then we'll come back at it. We'll come back at it. That gives everybody a chance to, to prepare for it and, or we'll just decide and we'll let everybody know what's going on. So thanks for coming on today, John, I'm going to go to a quick break and Ralphie IT guy's going to be on it. We're going to look at some first time firearm user videos. I'll be right back. Thanks. Bye everyone. Bye. Good morning. Welcome to BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com. I am Donna Brandenburg, and it's the seventeenth day of December twenty twenty four. And welcome to our show. And I'm going to bring Ralph, the I.T. guy on here a minute. Hey, Ralph, how you doing? Good morning. Morning. So you were posting some videos, so I thought I would put some of those up so we could look at first time firearm. Yeah, so if you click on the gear and go to the subtitle language, you should be able to go to auto translate to English. All right. And yeah, this one was. Yep, there you go. This one was really good because so Japan is very, very much. So, OK, so backing up a little bit history with with coming out of World War Two, Uh, Part of their Constitution, Article nine basically states that the US is responsible for protecting them and they need to be completely disarmed. And so they only really have a what they call a defense force, which is very, very minimal military presence. And a lot of Japanese people are completely opposed to any kind of military action whatsoever coming from their own country. and as a result, there's kind of a strong aversion among Japanese people to anything related to firearms. So this one was really interesting because there is a, with, this is based out of Guam and with it, with it being a U S overseas territory, I think it's categorized as they have a gun range there that is that caters to Japanese tourists because Guam is fairly, close to Japan relatively. And so it ends up being a Japanese tourist destination so that they can get kind of a taste of the United States without having to travel far. Oh, that's interesting. Well, I saw they had a bison in the video when we were watching it before. So let's see what, I'm going to see what, we won't be able to watch much of it because we'll get a YouTube strike. This gun holds twelve rounds of . . . caliber, then shot . . . went back to the . . . caliber in this automatic and shot six shots. Yeah, so they . . . basically they have different, like, menus of different types of . . . Oh, this is funny. Look at . . . you've got to have the . . . let's see if I can . . . Did you see the little cowboy thing over here? Yeah. The whole shop is very much kind of like . . . The theme of it is effectively cowboys, American cowboys. American cowboys get a bison hat up on the wall. Yeah. So they've got like a menu of the different firearms that you can shoot as kind of like a sampler for, you know, this is what different calibers feel like. This is what revolvers versus a semi-auto are like, or a rifle or a shotgun. And so that's what they're doing there is picking, you know, which course of guns do you want to try? Okay. And let's see what, make adjustments, cut your ticket, tell your name, go fifty shots, and Well, she's asking what kind that he likes best. Glock, if you want something shorter. This is interesting. I'm reading the subtitles now. Yeah. Yeah, she's got her ticket. Oh, proud she is. She's so proud. Now they're going to set up in the range. Yeah, let's see what happens. This space heater is being called the Tesla of heaters. It can warm up houses for practically zero cost. This game changer invention will keep... Got a little camo shirt on. So cute. Okay. So she's getting up just right-handed and he's showing her how to load the magazine. And one of the reasons why I like this one so much as an example of a perfect way to show people unfamiliar with firearms exactly what to do is he talks her through a bunch of the different rules for firearm safety and and tells her exactly what to do, what she's going to be feeling from different things, and then instructs her on what to do. Once they get up to the range there, they actually have a cable around the barrel, if I remember correctly, of each of them, that they anchor down so that new shooters can't go up there. And then, you know, you see a lot of new shooters tend to hold on to the firearm and turn around to ask questions. I have seen that happen more than once. In fact, I've watched people get their firearms taken away in a range because they will not continue to keep it pointed downrange. Yep. That's a real common mistake among new shooters. And with this, because they anchor that with a cable, it gives flexibility in where and how you can hold it, but you cannot turn around with it. and so it's it's very much kind of like the the whole experience is very much centered around instruction for people who have zero familiarity with firearms and that's why it's kind of cool to watch this one I I love watching videos of um particularly foreigners because of the lack of firearm knowledge shooting for the first time it's kind of fun to just watch that new experience with different people This one is one of my favorites because of how incredibly thorough they are with the instruction. Oh, he's real and thorough. He is super thorough. Watch that. That's amazing. I think that that's where she probably steps up to the range. Let's see if we... This is really thorough. There you go. Yeah, so they get real comfortable with everything before they introduce the next step. And they start with, I mean, they start with a pistol instead of a rifle. So there is a little bit more, there's a little bit more kick to that, but they start generally with a smaller caliber and then step up. So that kind of going off of what you said earlier, a lot of times, When somebody hands a new shooter a firearm, they'll use something that has way too big of a kick for them. Oh, yeah. Because they think they'll be able to handle it. And it scares the living daylights out of them the first time that they fire it. And it makes them nervous for the rest of, you know, our total do a lot of shooting. Yeah. And just so you know, guys, don't do this to your girls. Give them a small firearm to... to work with first so that they get used to it. As I said before, because I, I, you weren't on at the time, but I'm like, guys are all like, yeah, my girl can handle that. You know, it's a bragging right thing. And it's just not a good idea. Okay. I'm, I'm more of a fan too, of if you're going to introduce, if you're going to introduce somebody to firearms, do it with the, the smallest kick, the smallest sound that you can, and then gradually step it up. Absolutely. That's what I had said earlier. So run that page here, Ralph. And I tend to think that the smallest, the smallest that you could do is not start them off with a handgun, start them off with a, start them off with a rifle, you know, like a . . . Yeah, BB gun. Just anything like that so that they can, they can get introduced to the, I mean, like a bolt action . . . would be about perfect because you have . . . just minimize the kick, minimize the noise, minimize the experience. Yeah. And then let them get used to it. All right. Well, let's see what she does here. First shot. It's a nice, easy little, little firearm. Did you see that? Yeah. I'm kind of liking the idea that John has of suing these people individually who brought forward these firearm fake laws that they're trying to put, you know, put in place. Oh, look, she did pretty good. Look where she shot. She's got four of them here on the target. Not bad for somebody that has never really even been around a firearm, much less fired one. Yeah. So she's, she's a little tight on her grip, I think. Now let's see, now we're going to go into a revolver. Let's see how she does the revolver. She's having fun. And remember, don't put your hand around the barrel, people. And with a revolver, not around the front of the cylinder either. Not around the cylinder, yeah. Sorry, wrong term. Well, not a good idea to put your hand on either of them on a revolver. You can get fingers blown off. Or burned. Depending on the size. Yeah, it's not a short video, but they also didn't cut out much. So you really see a lot of his instruction and This has got to be probably one of the best instructors that I've seen for new shooters. His technique has got to be one of the best I've seen. Well, that's really interesting. So there you go. Merry Christmas. Take your friends and family out to a range and have a nice time. Great activity. Yeah. So there's... Got a bunch of those videos because I love watching how people are introduced to that. Learning how to learn and how to teach. Yep, how to teach this to newbies. And how to do it in the least shocking and easiest way so that they actually enjoy doing it rather than seeing it as something that's shocking or a chore or something like that, you know. Mm-hmm. So, well, this is awesome. Well, I tell you what, thanks for coming on here for a minute. I think I'm going to run into the rest of the day and I'm sure you're real busy too, but I appreciate you getting on here, Ralph. So why don't we say a prayer and then we're going to go into the day. And then tomorrow I will have on Chadwick Moore, who is the biographer for Tucker Carlson. Really nice guy. Very, very nice guy. I've gotten a chance to talk to him several times. Really interesting person. And so he'll be on tomorrow at ten. Tomorrow we have Liberty Essentials, then Chadwick Moore. And then I think John Ferguson from Saxon Aerospace is going to be on tomorrow talking about the drones and such. And I have my own opinions on the drones. You know, I think there's there's a lot of. A lot of manipulation going on out there, and quite honestly, we really don't know what's going on, but that's okay. We're just going to kind of keep an eye on this and listen to the narratives that are being built, because it's being built on both sides. It's certainly not something to get upset about or get sucked into the narrative with. Remember, most people have an agenda when they put a story forward. It's not as clear-cut and... How do I say it? Help me with the words here, Ralph. It's not as clear cut and altruistic as one would hope. Usually people have an objective or an agenda. In fact, I was talking to a friend this morning about human behavior. I would consider myself someone who studied human behavior and have spent a lifetime studying that and what people are really like. We got in the discussion of silo building this morning. and how people like to build silos. So that's a long discussion. I could talk to people about that for a very long time and what you're actually seeing when people do or say certain things, what they're actually seeing and what their real motivation is. And that actually might be a really good subject to tackle before Christmas and having to deal with craziness in our families because everybody has someone, right? And family dynamics are tough. And those internal motivations, a lot of times those are not the same as what's externally expressed, just like what you're saying. And that can, yeah, there's a lot of need for actual understanding of intentions in a lot of things and analysis of that. Well, because I do conflict mediation, it's always interesting to me when people get to the table and what they're saying and what they're not saying and what they're really saying. Because I had a situation this week that came out that pretty much nobody was doing the right thing. And that's usually the case. There's never a time that you are talking with people in a conflict situation and where people have truly pure intentions. So you have to listen to things kind of like as an observer, no matter if it's a personal situation or not. You look at it as an observer and go, well, we're going to cut through the bullshit here and see who's really telling the truth and who is just sort of kind of telling the truth or who's got another motivation. in order to move things in the direction that they want it to go. Silo building is a very interesting subject to go over. In fact, I spent probably an hour talking with someone about it this morning and what the mechanisms of that are, especially around Christmas time, this time of the year. There's a lot of silo building that's happening between people, around people, and that sort of thing. in order to create a situation of giving people the feeling of control. That's what it's all about, is control in an out-of-control feeling that most people have. So when you watch it, it's almost comical when you watch it and see what's happening. But you'll notice error if you really use a little discernment. Ask God for discernment. He'll show you exactly what's going on there. but exactly what people are doing to grab control when they feel insecure or out of control, they will start. And it actually goes back to a biblical principle, which is a respecter of persons. So like, for example, I'm unusual in this regard because I'm not a respecter of persons. Every single person that I see is pretty much the same to me. I don't see a hierarchy that a lot of people have because most people are categorizing people all the time on where they fall in the hierarchy. of their own minds. And it also goes back to the fact that people are team building all the time. They're either making trades or they're team building. I don't really look at things that way because I'm enough of an individual that I don't base my actions or what I do on the behaviors of other people. It is unstable. It's non-sustainable. And people change. If you don't like what somebody says or does, just give them two minutes because people are all over the place most of the time. And it's based on personal hurt or things that they're carrying forward in different situations. So this is a subject, if you guys want me to do some communication... training or in, I don't know, shining the light on it a little bit. Maybe it would make sense why people are doing what they're doing. And right now we're in crazy land. COVID absolutely broke everyone. The isolation that people went through, it kind of makes people go crazy. Just like if people are in isolation, say in a prison, if you're in isolation over two days in a prison, That is honestly, it's continued, considered torture. So when we look at what happened during that time period, we're looking at a terrorist tactic as well as a method of torture. And everyone in our government that did not speak up and say, oh, hell no, is guilty of it. It was torture on human beings. And we can see how human beings truly are broken right now. and what their reactions are to the world. They're doing the wrong thing. It opened up the door for demons to come in and also have an effect on their behavior. When people are not stable and they're in a weakened position, the demons are going to come in. It's just the way it is. If you're stable, you go to God if things don't feel quite right or that there's things that feel out of control that you can't, you're having a hard time coping with. Well, give it to God. You're not in control anyway. So give it to God. He'll make sense of the entire thing. and hopefully everyone within the situation will come out better for it instead of who's the winners and losers. You really want everyone to win if at all possible. It's not always possible to win in all situations. Sometimes the clear and present threats have to be eliminated. There's no two ways about it. But a lot of what we see, especially within family, friends, that sort of thing, is people that are just poor at coping. So they do wrong things. Especially in family gatherings, what you will see is you'll see people do, they'll be building silos. in order to, it's kind of like the game of playing mean girl in high school, where it's like this person is with this person and then they're with this person and talking. I'm not talking in a romantic way. I'm talking just in a way we relate to people. And they'll specifically put people out of a situation. It's not always easy. for good reasons. Sometimes people want to just have a private conversation. I understand that. But a lot of times it's to make that third person or fourth person or group of people feel like they're on the outside. It's very abusive, first of all. But second of all, it is to control so that the person on the outside has to work to garner favor to get back into the group. It is incredibly stupid. It's juvenile. but it's shocking how many people actually play that game. I think too, with, you know, one of the arguments against the whole, uh, people were isolated during COVID thing. And, and, you know, one of the big arguments as well, we had all these new digital forms of, uh, communication. And so people were still able to talk to each other digitally. And I disagree with that. I don't think the same because, with anything digital like that you have the ability to just shut it off yes and walk away from people it literally teach taught people how to walk away from other people and not stand there in a in a way that is long suffering where you people are imperfect you're going to have to put up if you want relationships with people you're dealing with people who are absolutely imperfect And you don't learn grace if you just hang up on people or shut them down. Yep. Or ban them from a group text or a group chat or something like that. It became way too easy for people to just... They didn't have to have any kind of social grace like you would with an in-person interaction with somebody where you can't just... If you've got a group of twenty people, it's a lot harder to socially come out of it looking graceful, kicking one person out. Well, and that's one of the best ways to unite a group is to have a common enemy. So if they create a common enemy within a family or a social group and gang up against them, it makes them all feel really proud of themselves because they've got their little group. But it's very evil and it's very abusive. it really bred a lot of very toxic social behaviors in just that one aspect. Yeah, I agree. But we could go through that and some other dynamics that people use when in group scenarios. The silo building is kind of a corporate term where people build silos based on who they use. People that build silos are people users. They're building teams. They're making trades all the time. It is anti-human. It is, in fact, very evil. And they don't even realize that what they're doing is evil, but it's evil. It's very evil and it's very abusive. Yeah. And I think another way for people that are maybe not as familiar with that, with the term silo building from corporate is kind of like, almost tribalism where you're you're building like a sub a subgroup within the larger cohesive community and trying to separate that out and watch people lick the boots of the people basically I'm saying that in a in a you know uh I don't know, just as an example. But watch how they become bootlickers to get accepted into the group. Yep. It's a big problem. They'll compromise just to get into that group and have the ability to be respected or acknowledged or be accepted because we're herd animals. We're not predatory animals by nature. Though we do act like that a lot, human beings do. But by nature, if you go back to our purest nature, we are herd animals. We are supposed to be living in more of a tribal situation rather than this broad construct that's happened. So that need for most human beings to be accepted is also one of the quickest ways to compromise them. Happens at family gatherings all the time. I can pick it out a mile away. I'm more amused by it than I am anything. Because I don't play those games. Another one, too, that kind of dovetails into what you were saying earlier about the differences in intention is another, you know, going into a lot of interactions here coming up, social interactions for people is... A lot of people anymore take things very, very personally and the and they assume the intentions of the other person when in a lot of cases people don't express their true motivations behind what they're saying, and if you can kind of step back a little bit and see. You know, I see this a lot with the discussions between conservatives and leftists. I wouldn't call them liberals because that really is kind of even a different term. That term has gotten redefined. But interactions there where in a lot of cases, there's a lot of agreement in the outcomes that people want in things. But they've gotten so polarized in the methods used to get there. That's what they fight over. Yep. And it ends up being, in a lot of cases, if you actually get down to it and really dig into the issues, people agree on a lot more than they disagree on. But that's something that we've gotten so used to the mainstream media trying to propagandize anyone into being so polarized on hyper-focusing on one aspect of an issue at the expense of looking at the broader issue as a, yeah, we all want this to happen kind of thing. I think that's another one that causes a lot of friction in larger gatherings. And that was another one that ends up getting exacerbated by the whole COVID isolation. Because once again, people got into echo chambers because they kicked out anyone who didn't immediately disagree with every single little thing that they said. And if there was any slight deviation from the party line, basically, of certain groups, you got kicked out. People didn't interact with people that even slightly disagreed with them in a lot of cases. Highly abusive. It's definitely abusive. When somebody turns their back on other people, it's a form of abuse. And now people say, oh, daddy, you're going off the deep end. But I want you to think about this. Think about what happens on the playground with children that they start ostracizing one person because they don't fit into the clique. Yeah, it's devastating for children. Absolutely devastating. And it's not OK. And we're in. And unfortunately, people are still doing it as adults. And more of them after COVID. A lot more. We're broken. So that's not OK. You know, we should be able to talk to each other, disagreeing with each other. But the key to it is, is to be able to listen, to listen to opinions that that differ from ours. And I'm not going to say that anybody's perfect at it. None of us are perfect at this because we'll have those things that just stick in our craw a little bit. So. and those things that we believe in that we're not willing to compromise on. But if we can just learn to hold our tongue a minute and let things play out just for a little bit and listen to it. you know, take a walk around the building. I don't, I mean, figuratively, just, just think about what they've said. Maybe there will be something that you can agree with them and learn from them instead of just all, you know, immediately throw the baby out with bath water and destroy them on the way out the door. It doesn't, it doesn't work well. It doesn't set up for a good relationship going forward in any way, shape or form. And that's not, you know, we can, we need to give grace to each other. Yeah. And I think you could talk a lot more extensively on that, too, with all of your experience with conflict mitigation. Yeah, sometimes you have to, like, how do I say it? Sometimes you have to just lay it down and say, this is just the way it's going to be. And especially if people get in a crazy world, there are times that you have to do things and say things that put an absolute, this is the line right here. Don't cross it. Because, I mean, I've had that in a few meetings where I've literally said, okay, we're all sitting down at the table here. Just so you know, don't start calling names at the people that are sitting at the table. There's no name calling. There's no accusing. Tell your side of the story. But if you attack the other person, you're probably going to get no more help than anything that comes from here on out. is going to be a really bad day for you. And once they understand that there's consequences to bad behavior and actions, usually people will sit down and go, oh, okay. Once again, we have some rules to keep things on the rails a little bit. And then it works out pretty good. I've never had one. I've really never had one that's melted down that we couldn't come to terms at the end that was actually a positive ending. Yeah. And that the The silo building really is, I've even seen that not just even in the corporate world, but I've seen that in even like where I've volunteered before and had to try and wrangle people that were in a volunteer situation who were trying to kind of sequester certain volunteers into being on their team. And if, and if you didn't do exactly what this one person who was trying to be a leader wanted, that he would try and get all of those volunteers to either rebel and not do what was supposed to be done anyway, or that they would all basically just quit doing anything that they were volunteering for. Yes. Building personal kingdoms. Yep. No different than what Gretchen Whitmer did and the tyranny that happened during that past time. It's the same thing. When we do it on a personal basis, there's no excuse for it. Just being in charge, sometimes it's best just to sit back and listen and, well, well, well, that's interesting. Don't even have to make a comment. Yeah, and it doesn't apply just to corporate, though, and it doesn't apply just to even to volunteer organizations, I mean, most volunteer organizations that I've seen tend toward devolving into silo building. And doesn't always have to happen, you know, but it happens a lot because people see that people seem to think that that power, even in an organization which is entirely supposed to be an ideological organization, they see that as a microcosm of where they have, if they have power within that, that is part of the reward in their brains for what they're contributing to the organization. I'm not really sure how to express that well, but people lose sight of the fact that there is an overall goal of the organization and try and grab power within it, instead of being a team. It happens a lot in a lot of volunteer organizations, just like it happens in a lot of corporate organizations. And it also happens on a personal level. And it's it sure as heck happens in politics a lot. Yeah, to be a good leader, you have to be a good follower, honestly, because a really good leader enables the people that they're leading, gets them going in the right direction, and then steps back a little bit, just watching it so that if there's adjustments that need to be made, that you move in that direction through management so that you make up for deficits and such. But that doesn't mean that that's the most elegant form of leadership. Most of the other ones are really not as elegant and it doesn't always work well. So a great example, too, of the listening to opposing sides for what they're actually fighting for rather than what they say they're fighting for. One of the best examples I can think of of that is the Fifteen Minute Cities. Fifteen Minute Cities and Defund the Police. Those two movements. Because if you actually listen to what they were about, Fifteen Minute Cities was about deregulating zoning originally. It wasn't about making cities more restrictive. It was actually a deregulation campaign. And if you listened to what they were trying to do, they were trying to bring city zoning back to the way that it was, restoring it to the way that it was in the eighteen hundreds. Which made a lot of sense, general stores and such. yep and it was it was really at its core it was a deregulation campaign and then it got co-opted and that it got portrayed as something completely different so that they could have everybody fighting over a non-related issue. But the people that were fighting for it really weren't about... Originally, the movement wasn't about trapping city dwellers into a climate change utopia where they couldn't leave. It wasn't about that at all. It was about deregulating the zoning so that cities could be constructed in a more efficient manner where people didn't have to use a car to get to everywhere. And it could be more convenient for everyone, more compact, not use up as much farmland in suburbs and generally make a more efficient downtown area that you see in some of the older downtowns. All of this was for developers, all of it. Yeah. To give them the advantage. And when you look at all of the money laundering funding that's gone on in the state of Michigan, I can guarantee you it's headed up by a lot of the developers. You can look at the big names in Michigan. If they're doing development, they're part of the problem. Yeah. And the Fifteen Minute City concept was kind of an anti-urban sprawl pro-farming concept. movement when you look at its original core, because it was basically about cutting down on the amount of urban sprawl, making even in suburban areas, having a kind of a suburb city center like you used to see in the older cities where you'd have different centers within even some of the outskirts of cities. you would have kind of a city center of that town where you'd have maybe your post office, your general store, you'd have shopkeepers living above their stores rather than having to separate out the zoning so that you've got a commercial zone in one area and a residential zone far away from there where everyone has to drive back and forth to work and no one can, it's, The way that our zoning is laid out right now, it's also very anti-small business. Very, very. And that was another thing that the original Fifteen Minute City concept was promoting was the idea of the return to the small business spaces that you would see in some of the older cities without some of the problems that have come in to make them so completely unaffordable that small business owners can't operate in them like they used to be able to. Agreed. It was an interesting concept and it's one that I think really exemplifies the listen to people with an opposing view thing because it has gotten so warped by effectively propaganda at this point from both sides to try and change that concept because that concept is something that nearly everybody can probably agree on if they look into it. And they had to make something for people to disagree and fight over. Go back to the original intent, which is what we were talking about earlier. If you go back to the original intent, then that's really where we need to start with a lot of this stuff. Yeah. And another example of that that I like to point out is the defund the police movement. The original defund the police movement was in response to the military either selling or in some cases giving away old obsolete and or decrepit military equipment to police departments. There's a program where now they give them to them. I think originally they were selling equipment to police departments. the problem that you had is that once they took on that equipment, now that local police department gets tied into the military industrial complex for any kind of maintenance. And the, the original defund the police concept was that was basically, kind of a tax conservative movement in saying this is going to overburden all of our local police departments with all of these expenses that are going to like Lockheed Martin and Oshkosh and all of the other military companies that are making this military gear that's now having to be maintained at a local level using national military prices for parts and services for maintenance for these things. And breaks local policing. Yep. And so it ended up overburdening these local police departments because they were accepting this equipment from national military organizations that were basically just throwing away this old equipment because they didn't want to handle the maintenance anymore. So they were foisting it on these local police departments. And the local police departments were accepting it, not because of the people on the ground that actually, they didn't want it in a lot of cases. In a lot of cases, it was due to the higher ups looking at this as something where they could portray it as, we just received X amount of millions of dollars of equipment and we didn't have to pay for it. But they didn't talk to the maintenance departments in any of these police precincts and figure out, Yeah, you just absorbed all of this equipment, but now we've got this annual expenditure that you're not putting out there of X that just went up by ten thousand percent because of what you just did. And that's really what the original defund the police people were about. I think, though, too, that there's a lot of problems in everyday life. where maintenance is not taken into consideration on anything. Yeah, there's a there's a huge problem with that. Yeah. And so the the defund the police movement wasn't about eliminating the funding for local policing, it was really about, okay, we need more people not taking all of our, all of what we're paying for police officers and shifting it over into paying for these massive machines to the military industrial complex, because that's what was happening. They were having to either, they were having to lay off local police to be able to afford the equipment that they were being given. Well, another, another captured good intention. So that's a good subject. You know, I think, you know, It got warped. It's become something that's completely different now. And it's portrayed different. A lot of the activists that are in it now are completely different than the ones that started it. Yeah, I would agree that that's something that we all need to take in consideration. And everything that we're involved in is to really look into it, not take things just at face value, but to ask questions. Yeah. With that said, let's end up, let's wrap it up for today and say a prayer and then we'll be back on tomorrow. Tomorrow I'm on with, let's see, who is it? Oh, you'll be back on tomorrow. The Liberty Essentials with Ralph Karen and Bill Moore and then Chadwick Moore and John Ferguson. That'll be, that'll be a good show. So dear Heavenly Father, thank you so very much for coming to be with us to this day and always being with us. It's just a nice time to be able to sit and talk and enjoy each other's company and work through problems and look at solutions and that sort of thing as you lead us to better processes. Thank you so much for the day that you've given us. Help us to maximize our time, to put it into those things that you want us to do. We really want to do the right thing and we are trying to listen to you. So as you expose things to us that maybe we didn't know before, help us to have an open heart to listen to your leading and to do what you ask us to do. We want to honor you with everything we do because we are grateful for you. We're grateful for your love. We know that you care for us so very much and you've been a wonderful friend to us. We want to be a friend to you also. Please open people's hearts and minds to the truth and break through, help them to break through, or you can maybe break through all of the deception going on, which seems to be creating so much confusion. People don't even know which way to look. So Light the path for us. Let us know what it is we're to focus on. We really need you because in and of ourselves, we have neither the strength, the discernment, the wisdom or anything. It all comes from you. And we're thankful for that. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. All right, boys and girls, this is where we go to. 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 want to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump, about this wearing cowboy boots. So with that said, boys and girls, have a wonderful day today, and we will see you tomorrow. Thanks for joining us and pass this information on to people. I've been putting out little videos to tell what's kind of going on, little news clips in the morning, as well as some preview of what we're doing. Please have people sign up for, say, my TikTok channel and some of the other social media channels on my Telegram channel today. I'm going to post our link tree so you can find us in different locations because we're kind of like everywhere right now. of a broader distribution rather than a smaller one with a vertical structure. So please help people to find us so that we can get good information out in front of others because we're going to need to educate people across the United States. The education that we have had and the propaganda that continues on and on needs to be brought to the surface so that people can know the truth And that'd be so crazy, everything they see out there, which is designed to make them crazy. So join in with us. And with that said, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love. God bless America. Make it a great day. It's a choice. Starts here and here. Don't let anybody blow you around. Stay calm in the midst of a storm. Be the calm in the storm. It's a doable thing. And it gives you a wonderful sense of actually being in control when you stay calm. We'll see you tomorrow.