Published Jan. 14, 2025, 9:01 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tater. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am GR Mobley - Five Critical Documents as it relates to their place in history and what happened to cause Jefferson and Madison to use their influence to lead in a coup to take back America. Madison’s speaks out to how and why interposition is the only way… G.R. Mobley Retired from the Marine Corps in 1998 who has worked and served in the Intelligence Community, either as a Marine, a discipline leader, or as an engineering leader for over 35 years. He has been a life-long self-educator and student of our founding documents. He has committed much of his life to public service and leadership in one form or another and hosts a national radio show on Red State Talk Radio called “Reclaiming the Republic.” G. R. has turned his focus into scouring historical references and source documents of the birth of the Republic, to bring to light relevant information regarding our hybrid Constitutional Republic that has been obfuscated by nationalist, those who label themselves as conservative as well as the secular progressives for the past two centuries. G.R. has identified that the necessary power has always resided with the sovereign’s (i.e. the People and the governments instituted by the People) to save our Constitution. His writings and his message will convince reasonable people that the Constitution and the Republic can be saved if the We the People and their County and State governments will only assert their authority within the Republic. The ONLY way we will be able to succeed in doing this is by following the standard the framers set by putting aside our differences and our self-interests and focus on full compliance to the Constitution(s). X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1LyGBgnbrDrJN Rumble: https://rumble.com/v698b9s-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-1142025-lawful-defense-and-5-usa-critical-docu.html https://rumble.com/v698aus-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-1142025-lawful-defense-and-5-usa-critical-docu.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-01-14-lawful-defense-five-usa-critical-documents:7 https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, GR Mobley
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it is the fourteenth day of January twenty twenty five. Still getting used to the new dates here guys. And I hope you're having a great day today. It's a beautiful day in Michigan. I was up at about five o'clock, went to the barn, did horse chores and such. and snapped a few pictures out there of the horses in the snow and such. I just got to tell you, Michigan is absolutely a beautiful place to be in winter, and everybody enjoy your time out there. It's absolutely beautiful, but be careful driving. It's a little slippery outside, and I have something else really funny to show you. I'll put it up in a minute, but we have a whole week of My favorite number. I can't help myself. I have to do it. So at any rate, this morning we have John Tater on with Lawful Defense. And we're going to be talking about all sorts of things like returning to the law, which, wow, that would be a change, wouldn't it? Returning to the law, accountability, justice. Count me in. I'm in. And then after John, I have a gentleman on named G.R. Mobley. And I got in contact with him through one of my very favorite people in the Constitution Party, Paul Venable. Paul is one of the most educated people I have ever met in my life. on the Constitution within the Constitution Party. I love this guy. The Constitution Party is very well educated. However, Paul really sets the standard. I mean, he's amazing. And so he introduced me to GR and we ended up talking for a very long time. And guess what? There's five critical documents that we're going to be talking about in the United States. It's going to lead us right back to nullification, which is what I've been saying for a long time. We need to go to nullification to write this thing. We can't write more laws. We can't. Add, add, add, add, add, because we're just creating a bigger monster. We got to go back to what worked and do it in a lawful way. And with that said, I'm going to bring on Mr. Tater. How are you? I'm good. I'm good. Good. I should keep you in that category, too, because you're also part of the Constitution Party. And it's amazing how educated the people in the Constitution Party are about the law, about lawful defense, about legal precedents and such. It's amazing. Paul is very active in the national level, the Constitution Party. And quite honestly, when I go to the meetings, he's my go-to guy every single time on what, you know, when we're there, I'll ask Paul, hey, Paul, what do you know? When I'm here, I ask John. Amazing people. And we should be very proud of the fact that John and Paul and people like them are around to help teach us what's going on. So what are we talking about today, Mr. Tater? Well, you kind of said it already a little bit. We should talk about the rule of law. Returning to the rule of law, because without the rule of law, we don't have a republic. We have a mess of democracy as to what we are living under at the moment. The rule of law specifically sets up the duties and functions of public functionaries who are in office and who we have elected and who we have given power to do certain things. If we go back to the Declaration of Independence there to protect our life, liberty, and property, and that's all their duties are. And what's been on the news the last few days has been what's going on in California. And we don't have that crisis in Michigan because I think Michigan is not quite what they would call a blue state. We are not all lefty, ignorant Democrats that are trying to stay in office or trying to hold on to power. There are a lot of people out there that are paying attention to the law, that are paying attention to the rules, but all power to all government public functionaries is limited They have limited power. And since I don't live in California, I was going through the Michigan constitution under the executive branch and looking to see what the powers of the executive branch are. And I didn't see any powers in the executive branch that allows new scum to do what he's doing in California. I suspect the, Constitution in California similar to the Michigan Constitution, and that there are certain limited powers that Newsom has. But the glaring example is the mayor of LA, who goes to Ghana, of all places, for whatever reason, she says to honor a upcoming president. But Where in the executive branch or where in the Constitution does it give these public functionaries such as her to go to a foreign country and to deal with a foreign dignitary, a foreign politician? There's nowhere in the Constitution. Who's supposed to take care of foreign matters when it comes to our country? I'm going to let you answer your own question on that because you're wrong. It's pretty simple. That's why we developed the United States of America, a federal government. The federal government was supposed to deal with foreign dignitaries, with foreign powers. And they're so corrupt right now. That's the problem. The State Department is deciding what foreign policies are supposed to be. And I wouldn't trust those guys any further than I can throw them. Look how Hillary screwed up Benghazi and everything else. I mean, it's a concern, large concern. Bill, if you pick on Hillary... You got to ask yourself, is there any place in the Constitution that gives her the authority not to send in the military troops to protect what happened in Benghazi? None of it was done the way that it should have been done. And no, there isn't. No, there isn't. Just like, can you tell a police officer if he sees a crime to look the other way? No. No, his duty... is to protect from that crime or to stop that crime. So you can't issue an order, governor or mayor, saying that the police need to stand down when your party store is burning to the ground. They don't have that authority to do that. They must act in accordance to what their job description is. Their job description is to stop crime. Is burning down the store a crime? Yes. Should the police officer then stop that? Yes. Well, what if the police commissioner says, don't stop it, leave it happen? The commissioner is out of line and in violation of his duties and functions as a police commissioner. Well, look, that's exactly what happened in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with the communist Rosalind Bliss, mayor that we have here, told the chief of police to stand down. And that sorry son of a bitch took a knee to these people. See, he had no authority to do that because that's not in his job description. It goes back to... Why are you there? What's your duty? What's your job function? What are you supposed to do in that particular position that you were assigned, given, elected for, whatever? What is the job description? Well, I'm sure as hell it would take and eat a terrorist. Yeah, well, this mayor flies back on a government military plane. Can you believe that? Where did you have the authority to do that? She flew out commercial on her own dime, which she didn't because I'm sure the L.A. people paid for her trip. And she went out there to do whatever she was doing to schmooze with this guy during the fires. Or did Soros pay her a handsome sum to go out there and be out of L.A. when L.A. was burning? she she she derelict on her duty she should be not only uh recalled but she should be tried for treason that's that's just the way it goes new scum should be tried for treason did he have the authority to dump the reservoirs into the ocean uh no no he had no authority to do that why where did he come up with that authority he made that up and he as he went along and The rule of law says you don't have that. You can't do that. So where do we find the rule of law? We go back to, and you're saying we can't make new laws, rules, and regulations. You're right. We go back to the original rules and regulations, which is the Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, if it's not written in there, mayor, governor, any other public functionary out there, you don't have that authority to do that. You just can't do it. It's beyond your scope of employment. And if you do that, then you need to be removed and you need to pay back all of the funds that you've taken from the state for your financial gains, for your income, for your pension, for whatever. has to go back to the state because you violated your oath of office. That would stop everything if we- That is great. Claw those pumpkins back from all these people that have committed treason and we can start funding all sorts of things to the American people and also give them back their money. That should be like number one on the list is all of this ill-gotten gain And money laundering, racketeering, extortion, all of this needs to be commandeered, I'll just say commandeered, and brought back to, given back to we the people who paid the taxes in. There's your restitution. I believe in restitution, but not on a pity campaign, on an actual damages campaign that you can take. Rule of law. Rule of law. Back to the rule of law. Yep. And you know that judges, all judges are presumed to know the law. And most of them are ignorant of the law. So how do you get to become, or get to sit in the position of a judge when you're ignorant of the constitution? Well, let me ask you this. How is it that they can write into law? Pretended law it's pretended law because it shouldn't stick. The fact that they have to be an attorney. for five years before they can take an office as a judge? Well, that's in the Constitution, unfortunately. Whoever developed the Nineteen Sixty-Three Constitution. But that's a bad Constitution. Oh, of course it is. It was legally installed. Remember, we go back to one tenth of one percent that passed it, so it should have never been passed, number one. How far back would you go for nullification? Well, we should go back to the previous Constitution. Did you go back to the mid-eighteen hundreds? No, it was nineteen, and I don't remember the date. I guess I'm talking federally. Federally, I think we need to go back before the sixteenth amendment, and I think we need to go back probably before that. I think at least... Well, you know that the sixteenth amendment doesn't give Congress any new taxing power, because it's been said that in... Bruce Shaver versus Union Pacific Railroad. However, the American public was led by these public functionaries and mostly attorneys and accountants, because this is a gravy train for those people. If you wouldn't have to file your taxes every year, the accountants would be out of business. So would the attorneys. Uh, and, and so the Bruce Shaver case, which is the law, which says Congress got no new taxing power. And that means that income tax on the private individual doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because you can't tax an individual that's a direct tax and a direct tax can only be apportioned among the states. So when they file a direct tax. They go to the state of Michigan. They say, oh, you got ten thousand people in Michigan. We're going to ask you for a dollar per person. That's ten thousand dollars. You collect it however you want state of Michigan and send it to the federal government. That's a direct tax. Nowhere does it say that the public has to dig into their pocket based on a generic term income. Remember, the generic term income is money coming in, but the legal term of income is profit or gain. So if you labor for money, doing whatever your job might be, if you have labored for that money, that's your time of life. And you're just getting compensated for your time of life. There is no profit. There is no gain from working for a living. You're making trade. It's dollar for dollar. It's dollar for labor. It's one hour of labor equals twenty dollars of paper and twenty dollar twenty dollar Federal Reserve notes because we can't even call them dollars. Twenty Federal Reserve notes, twenty firms, Federal Reserve notes. That's what it is. And they cannot then turn around and tax you on that. those ferns because that's your time of life. And that's Tracy versus the United States. Tracy Mining Company basically talks about that. And in Tracy it says, The government was trying to tax the mine based on the ore that they were retracting from the mine. They were saying, okay, you made so many dollars on this ore, and therefore you owe so much income tax because that's income to you. And the Supreme Court said no, because that has a limited amount of ore in there. And when that ore runs out, there is no more. so because it's a limited amount and every time you take a dollar or every time you take a piece of ore out of there and you sell it that or has value of the marketplace at that time but that that or is finite in its uh in its amount is your life finite is it finite yes Yeah, you work so many years and then you're done. You work until you're, what, sixty or sixty-five, according to the law, and then you're done working. You don't work anymore after that. So your time is finite. You're just like a piece of ore. When you labor for money, and you get paid in ferns, those ferns are not taxable as an income to you. It's just your exchange of life. What was the other case you called out, Brubaker? Oh, Brushaber. Bruce Shaver versus Union Pacific Railroad. Bruce Shaver versus Union Pacific Railroad says that Congress have gained no new taxing power. Why did that case come up? Because when the government came up with this scheme of an income tax, the federal, the Supreme Court said, wait a minute, this is a scheme And you can't change the first two parts of the Constitution, which are the two parts that limit the power to tax. One is a direct tax and the other is an indirect tax. You can't change those by an amendment or by a, not an amendment, but by a law. You can't change it. Just like you can't change the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the amendment for... Prohibition by writing an act. Or you could not come up with the prohibition by an act saying, okay, we're going to limit power of alcohol, use of alcohol, and we're going to just put a congressional act in like the legislature. They had to go through an amendment process to change the alcohol business. While you can't change the law of the taxes by an amendment. Furthermore, you can't change the basis of the Constitution. You can't change the first ten amendments. You can't adjust them. You can't rewrite them. You can't rewrite the basis of the Constitution because that's the groundwork of the government. That's like the government getting in power and all of a sudden saying, oh, you know, we're going to change something based on a law. Legislation is all going to get involved and do that. You can't do that. Can't change the basis of the Constitution. So since you can't change the basis of the Constitution and it only gives you two powers to tax, the direct tax and the indirect tax, then you cannot come up with an income tax, even though they tried that in the Sixteenth Amendment. But the Sixteenth Amendment, only clarified an excise tax. That's all. That's all it did. We are not responsible for excise taxes. Uh, and so they, but, but the government and the IRS and, you know, the fear of the IRS and everybody was afraid. And, you know, the IRS is going to attack you and break down your door and do all of this bad stuff to you. If you don't pay your income tax. And if you don't file your income tax on time, then they're going to find you all these ridiculous fees and fines. And for a while they got away with it because. like the Warren Commission, which was Chief Justice Warren and his band of renegades in the Supreme Court, passed laws, rules, and regulations to allow, to afford the administrative state to come on board. And the administrative state is what we've been living with all these years. It's not the rule of law. It's not the rule by the Constitution. It's the rule by... Bureau rats that live in office that make up these rules and regulations that are not responsible to anybody. IRS agent can't vote that IRS agent in or out of office. He's put in there to behave a certain way, and he follows his orders from the upper echelon, and so it gets lost in the mud. Who's responsible for this IRS agent? I don't know. And it ends up being that nobody pays any attention to that guy. He collects so many dollars from the public by squeezing them and he gets away with it. I tell you what, my dad had a regret that was his regret till the day he died. So he had a business and he went in one day for some sort of an audit in the IRS. And he said that guy looked at him and my dad was a very, very honest. He was honest. Honest as the day is long. And he went through my dad's receipts and just flipped through and said, I'll take that many. My dad at the time was a younger guy and he was so intimidated by this. didn't know what to do, didn't know his rights, didn't know the law, that he was just like, okay, because he didn't know what else to do. But he walked away from there, and the rest of his life, he regretted not challenging that guy and telling him to go to hell because he was in the right. The receipts were good, and the guy just basically thumbed through and said, yeah, I'm only going to accept this many, and that's the way it is. Never looked at a thing. I've been through several audits in my days too and the auditors are dumber than rocks most of them they're extortionists they are only after money I I was in front of one irs agent that and I was running a comer uh a building company at the time and it was not corporate incorporated so the government had no control over me it was a a DBA doing business as me. And there was this one woman IRS agent. You know what she was doing? She was writing down all of my checks. Every single check, she'd write the check number, she'd write the amount, she'd write who it was to. We had copy machines back then. Why would she spend three hours with me sitting there writing out my checks. What was the purpose? Purpose was to waste my time, try to intimidate me, tried to make me feel like I was lower than her, that I was not intelligent, that I didn't know what I was doing. This was their behavior. This is the way she acted. Final result? Well, she did get a couple of pounds of flesh out of me, but not much. And the IRS back then was abusive, and they got some money from me. However, I'm going after them now for that. And I'm going to continue to go to court until justice prevails. They are filthy extortionists. Yes, they are. They are not following the law. None of them are. Not one of them in that organization. The IRS should be abolished. That's right. And restitution for the crimes that the entire organization has done. Oh, I wish I had brought my distrained IRS book. Maybe I can find it online as we're talking about this. What's it called, John? I'll look it up too. Oh, it's... In the IRS, you're a filthy extortionist and you're trying to save America. Step down. Save yourself because justice is coming. Or for three, I think. What's the title? Well, give me a second here. Maybe I can find it. I know you want a radio show. Shouldn't have a blank time. But sometimes, sometimes we have no choice. It's levies and the strains. And what? The strains. Levees and the strains. Ah, six, three, three, one. Levee and the strains. Levee and the strains. It's a US code. Okay, listen to this. This is authority of the secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax negates or refuses to pay the same within ten days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the secretary to collect such tax and such uh future sums as shall be sufficient to cover the expense of the levy by levying upon the property and rights to property except such properties as is exempt from section six, three, three, four belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax levy may be made upon the, listen to this, accrued salaries and wages of any officer Employee. or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy upon the employer as defined in section, of such officer, employee, or elected official, If the secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the secretary and upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawfully without regard to the ten-day period provided in this section. Do you know that when they send out a notice, a levy, they eliminate paragraph A? They start with paragraph B? Question is why? Because nowhere in here, when it says who they may levy, does it say a private individual? Wow. Officer of the state. You gotta be a accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States. Not private individual. This is the only authority that the IRS has to levy a tax on anybody. But they avoid this part A. Now, in the rule of law, all rules, all laws exist at the same time, same place, and at the same time. So you can't eliminate A and start with B. You got to take in A and B. So when the employer gets this, when your local school board employer, or what do we wanna call them? Human resources person gets this notice a levy and A is missing. And they start with B, which says pretty much what a levy is, but they don't say who can be levied. The employer doesn't research this and go and find Section A and say, oh, wait a minute. You've eliminated Part A, why? They're all frightened to death that something's gonna happen to their business, so they turn around and they levy. This is a third party levying a tax on a private individual. The IRS doesn't get involved. The IRS just collects the money. because they use a third-party collector, which is the employer. This is how they get away with this nonsense. Wow, I'm writing it down right now. This is code title. This is the IRS code. That's the only people that can be levied. Slow down. Slow down. It's the IRS code title. What? Code section six, three, three, one levies levy and the strain. Wow. I'm going to write, this is what I got. Another pretended legislation, the IRS has the ability to levy and seize property of an American, does not have the ability. That's right. Never did. But people don't know this. It's in the code with what, I don't know how many pages. You know how thick the IRS code book is. You have to really look through it. You have to read it and understand it. Well, the idiotic judges that are sitting on the bench judging don't know this section. Don't know that they can't levy a private individual. Remember, if it's not written there, they don't have that power. They only have the power when it's written. but I've tried more than once to get into court to do an oral argument against the internal revenue and they won't let me into court. I wonder why that is. They won't let me put an IRS officer on the stand under oath and ask them what section A of six, three, three, one A is. is under oath, get an IRS agent under oath and ask him what this authority of the secretary is. And I've tried, I've been filing court cases in the federal court ever since, trying to get into the courtroom And confront the opposition and haven't been successful. Now, I remember you talking about this before, but I don't think it really sunk into the level of my really understanding the unlawful mechanisms they've been using. It seems like everything is just coercion and threat. Everything they do is fear, trying to get us to capitulate to their little pretend clown show they got going on out there. From top to bottom, this systemic corruption is overwhelming, the amount of systemic corruption we have. That's right. So is it important to get rid of the internal revenue? Well, yeah, because of the corrupt people that are in the system and the people that don't know the law and the people that behave as if they are the authority. Yeah, it's important to get rid of them, at least to flush the IRS out and get rid of all the scumbags in there. There's a ton of them or more. Get rid of those people, but getting rid of the internal revenue? The internal revenue is set up, and again, it's set up illegally because there's no constitutional authority for it. It's a de facto organization. It doesn't exist. But let's say that we want it to exist. We want to make a organization of such to go after corporations and businesses that are in fact under corporation status. Because if you're a corporation, you have certain rights and privileges, but you pay for those certain rights and privileges. that means you become part of the state and that means that this would fit in your you would be part of this uh uh part of the uh uh salaries or wages of any officer employee or official or elected official if you are a corporation but if you're not a corporation if you're dba like I was I don't fit in this category at all never been a corporation Never been incorporated under any of the things that I have ever done. So the authority of the secretary doesn't apply to me. But if you are a corporation and you've asked for certain privileges, then yes, then there's a little gray area here that they could probably use against you. So go for LLCs too then? It depends how that LLC is being used, but yes, it can go for LLC, limited liability corporation. You're asking the government for certain private individual privileges, limited liability, et cetera, et cetera. And therefore you do fit, kind of fit into this category, kind of. You're not doing business there. You're not a full-fledged corporation. However, if you go to Haynes versus Kerner, which is a Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court spells out who is a private individual and who is a corporation and what rights a private individual has and what rights a corporation has. So if you're in a, and I'm looking for that case myself, I got it right here. If I could put my finger on it real quick. I can bring that one up too. All cases. Haynes versus Kerner. Haynes, where are you, H? A lot of people don't have the attention span or the bandwidth in their brain to be able to process this. Unfortunately, this is what we have to do. It's those things that are the tedious detail to know what the law is. This isn't like watching fires and ambulances and all this other nonsense that's out there. They're keeping us from knowing the law by distraction. Partly, yes, that is true. Why are they doing all this? They're trying to distract us so we don't find out what they're doing. It's like, look here, here, so you don't look over here. That's exactly what they're doing. I think in California, they're burning up evidence. That's what I think they were after. I think they're trying to, oh, it's Hale versus Hinkle. I'm sorry, wrong case. Hale versus Hinkle. Not, yeah, I gave you the wrong case. Haynes versus Kerner says the judge is supposed to help you in court. Not supposed to hold you to the same standards that he holds a bar attorney to. Hale versus Hinkle says, we are of the opinion that a clear distinction in particular between an individual and a corporation and that the latter has no rights to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination at the suit of a state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors uh to divulge his business or to open his books to an investigation oh that's the case I needed today that's amazing so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing thereof beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of this land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, which is the wrong word, to bear witness against himself, and the immunity of himself and his property. from arrest or seizure except under the warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." That's Hale versus Hinkle, a Supreme Court case. Well, that's a good case. That in itself, that in itself tells you that the IRS has no right to tell you to bring your books and records to the IRS audit because you're a private individual. You're not a corporation. You're not a corporation. They have no right to ask you to do that. And it's spelled out not only in the Internal Revenue Code, under six three three one A, but it's also spelled out in Hale versus Hinkle and there are other Supreme Court cases. And we go back to Bruce Schaber versus Union Pacific Railroad. Congress has no new tax in power. That means they cannot come up with something called an income tax, a tax on your income, generic income, only the legal term income, which is a profit or a gain. Well, you want to know one of their new things they came up with? That if you are running as a candidate, you have to submit a personal financial statement and basically give them access to all your personal information. Yeah, well, when you run for government, they have no control over you. When you become the governor or whatever, now they got control. So they have no standing whatsoever. And it was the legislature that passed that they have no standing to ask for any of this. Nope. Well, they tried. You are a member of that organization. They tried to, they tried to levy that on me and I'm like, I ain't paying it. That's the way it is. They sent me a letter saying that I have to file. I'm not even answering it because I'm hoping that they drag me into court so that I can beat the hell out of them. It's like this, you know, nonsense of them accusing people over and over and over again for doing wrong things and wasting our time having to answer their absolute, you know, BS they've got going on. They're keeping us busy just trying to fight them, you know, to fight them or answer their pretended legislation. Yeah, I agree. I don't pay any attention to that either. I'm not paying any attention to it. If you want to take me to court, if you want to try to find me, go ahead. I got a whole jar of beans out there. Yeah, if you want to try to go after me and extort money, guess what? The lawsuits can go in two directions. That's right. because it's wrong. And the entire legislature, the legislature passed this. I believe they did. They probably did because they're all corrupt and they all want you to be – they want life to be difficult for you to run for their office. They do. But it's such a dumb thing because what they're doing, they're doing the same thing that one guy that was part of the – I've got to think about it. I'm not going to say his name. But he was part of the John Birch Society. He was hiding – expensive cars in his wife's name and that's what they do. You can look at these financial statements all you want. They don't do business the way we do. People have to remember that. They don't do business the way that we do. They don't hold to the same standard. They move money around in a very criminal way and they're trying to get you to play ball with the way that we're supposed to do it, but they don't do it that way. So how do we fix this? We remove every one of these people, try them for treason and send them to Gitmo. Rule of law. Do you have the authority, Mr. Legislature, to make such requests of your public, of the people? in your constituency. And you threaten coercion in a whole ten yards. It's threatening and it's coercion. You don't have that power. That's not your job. That's not what you're there for. You can pass any law that you want if it doesn't fit in the Constitution. But they play this game all the time. They figure if they pass a law that it's going to take a while for it to get to court. So during that time period between the time they pass the law and the time it goes to court, there are going to be a lot of people that fall in line and do what they're supposed to do, what the government wants them to do, that will send in their paperwork and do all of that nonsense. up front and so they have accomplished their mission, whether it becomes law and it stays and that remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is that they press it until you try to stop it or until you push back. They're trying to keep pressing it until we fight back and we say we're done, no more. They're going to continue this on. Freedom is not free. You have to want it. You have to be able to stand for it. You have to be educated enough to know what grounds you're standing on. Educate and be able to defend your point. That's right. So part of it is going back to the rule of law. You have to know the law. There's no way out. How can you be a lawmaker and not know the law? How could you be a lawmaker and say, I swear I'll uphold the Constitution of the United States, and you've never read it? and you don't know what your function is as a legislature. I make up laws. That's not what the constitution says about a legislature. Yes, laws come from the legislature, but what are the duties of the legislature? What are the duties in the federal government of the legislature? They have eighteen duties. That's all they have. They only have the eighteen duties that are listed in the federal constitution. One of them is provide a post office and postal roads and fix the standards of weights and measures. And you could go to the legislature and read those duties. And none of those duties are what the legislature is doing. Same with the state legislature. They have certain duties that they are required to do. That is their job description. That's like you're going to the military. You become an infantryman. And your duty as an infantryman is to learn how to shoot a rifle and shoot at the enemy. And that's all you're supposed to do. You're not supposed to try to do other parts of the war because that's not your job. What your job is is what you're supposed to be doing. Here we go. Eighteen enumerated powers of the federal government, and this is it. That's it. It's all over the place. We're done, this is all of it right there. The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense, general welfare of the United States, not shrimp on treadmills, guys, or marbles up a cat's rear end, but all duties and posts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, to borrow on the credit of the United States, to regulate commerce. You missed one, most important. What did I miss? To coin money. Well, I think it's got to be down here somewhere, but this is... Oh, it's right there. Yeah. You're getting ahead of me there, John. Oh, okay. You're wrong. I'm going to tater you. So to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes to establish and inform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. To coin money, regulate the... You're going too fast. to coin money what does that mean make coins out of gold and silver yeah doesn't mean turn on the printing press does it uh doesn't look like it to me no doesn't mean that you can print money off of paper back up if you back up just a little bit you'll see one other one that's very important Okay, I'll let you go down through this and you can explain. No, you're doing fine. To establish a uniform rule for naturalization, it doesn't say natural born. Natural born is something that you have to be in order to be the president. And there's no law by Congress that they can make someone natural born or change the law of the Constitution to let a naturalized citizen become a president, such as, who am I speaking of? The Kenyan. Well, he is one, obviously, but the other one is Kamala Harris. She's not naturalized. She's not a natural born citizen. She is at best naturalized. So Congress can establish the uniform rules for naturalization, but they can't change the policy for being natural born. And there's a big difference between the two. And therefore, she cannot, no matter what they do, no matter how they stand on their head, they can't fix that. She's not natural born. She flies in the face of the executive rules of the federal constitution. Now why our legislature, being Republican and Democrat, can't figure that one out, I have no idea. And why they allowed Obama to become a president because he was not natural born, I have no idea. They violated their oath of office right there. That's all treasonous as far as I'm concerned. Okay, you can go on. Where did I stop? To provide for the punishment for counterfeiting. Oh, there's another good one. Who's counterfeiting coining money? The Federal Reserve right now. The private banking industry. Yeah, the Fed. Is committing counterfeit. Counterfeiting the currency, the current coin of the United States. So do we get to go after all the banksters at some point in time, too? Boy, that would be a fun day, wouldn't it? They would have all violated this law. That would be a great day. Wouldn't that be a great day? Yep. Oh, and Charlotte says AIPAC lobbyists pay them. Yep. It doesn't matter who pays them. It doesn't matter what the system is. It matters that they're not following the rule of law and being a legislator who's supposed to make the law can't follow the law that's already existing. I think Charlotte's saying is that APAC pays. Because she's part of our group. Now you're getting tatered. You're getting tatered. Okay. Go ahead. All right, go on. Okay. To establish post offices and post roads to promote progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. That's another thing that really needs to be worked on. The copyright and the patent laws. What a bunch of crap. Yep, yep. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. To define and punish piracy's felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. To declare war, grant letters of mark and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Let's stop here, too, because this is another one, declare war. Congress is the only one that can declare war. President can't. And yet we were in Vietnam, which wasn't declared war. We were in Korea, which wasn't a declared war. We were in Kosovo, which wasn't a declared war. How about Ukraine and Syria? And Ukraine and Syria. We are involved in other countries that are not declared wars by the United States. And therefore, they're all in violation of this part of the Constitution. Not only that. not only the legislature but for allowing it for allowing the president to do what he's doing but the president himself is in violation of this part of the law okay to raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use, shall be for a longer term than two years. Oh, there's another good one. There you go. That's a problem, isn't it? How long has our military been standing? There you go. Enough to build eight hundred and fifty military bases around the world. And people are saying we've been in war ever since World War II, which is a crock, which is not true. But that's the patriots with the small p that don't know any better and that don't understand that a war can only be declared by Congress and we have no declaration of war and therefore the army needs to be disbanded after two years. So what was that, to a . The military should have been disbanded except for the cadre, which is the training organizations of the military to be able to bring troops on and bring them up to speed to fight a war. How about the war in the Middle East, the wars in Middle East? Let's call them wars because there's been more than one. There's no declared war in the Middle East. There was no declared war against Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the other countries that are out there. There was no declaration of war. Therefore, the military should not be involved in those conflicts. And they call them conflicts, but same difference. When you put the military to work with guns to go and topple a government, then you are involved in a war, no matter how you want to call it, no matter whatever you want to call it. It's so nice to have just a nice little bullet pointed list like this because sometimes we get out in the weeds as we're talking. And I think that all of these processes need to be broken down to their rudimentary levels so that everybody can kind of get the overall grasp of what's going on here and then drill down on the individual topics. I like doing it this way. Anyhow, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Would you like to elaborate on that one? Well, we have to provide and maintain the Navy. The Navy being a part of a legitimate part of government is the only military or armed forces. Oh, yeah. I went, I skipped past that to provide and maintain the Navy. Okay. Yeah. It's for more than just the military. stability of what's going on around the coastal regions of the United States, but overseas and everywhere else, the ability to move troops across the ocean. This was before airplanes, of course, and jets and so on and so forth. But the Navy was the main pinnacle of the military to be able to move. I think naval intelligence is really quite intriguing. that really, really, and a wink-wink to my friends out there in that area. But they've got some cool toys, I've got to tell you. Yes. So to provide, then we're going to skip to, to make rules for the government regulation of the land and naval forces to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. I'm guessing that a great way to do that would just to have stand your ground rules, you know, and the citizenry between the ages of, I think, fourteen and sixty five. You know, I don't know. I'm not sure of the lower edge. I think it might be a team, but I might be wrong. I think it's younger than than the norm. But the militia is you and me. Yeah, we have a responsibility to be part of the militia, whether we like it or not. So we should be well trained in the use of weaponry. And that means everybody should own a gun and everybody should be trained as to how to use it, how to clean it and feed it and take care of it and so on and so forth. Because it is the important part of our government and our constitution that we as individual citizens have the ability to protect not only ourselves, but our nation from foreign invasion, which is what we are in the middle of right now. We should have stand your ground protocols where people can absolutely defend their own land, their own ground and such. It should be somebody takes one foot on your ground. and it's threatening you, you have the right to defend that. I agree. And for the most part, it is in many states that way. I don't know about Michigan. It's not in Michigan, but, you know, it should be. And it's like, oh, but, you know, you listen to the libtards out there that go, but, you know, they're out there. They don't mean any harm to you. You should just give them what they want, send them on their way because they're just misguided. They'll learn. Yeah, I don't mind giving him some lead. Yeah, let's send him back in. But that's really what needs to happen is being able to have the courts, which are Soros courts and such, Marxist, traitorous little pukes in our courts right now that don't care about the rule of law. They're not going to uphold the right of an individual. So we do have to go back to the rule of law. Yes. What is the rule of law? Your life, your liberty, your property is to be protected, if not by government, then by yourself. Without your life, there isn't anything. So that's what this is all about. I see we're running out of time. And I am in the process of I have to get out and be somewhere else in a little bit. So is our guest coming on? Yeah, he's back there. I can see him backstage. I'll bring him on in just a minute and such. But I tell you what, I'm going to go ahead and put these in my Telegram channel for all you beautiful people to be able to read and know that Brandenburg, the number four MI. Ta-da! There it is, like magic. So at any rate, thanks for coming on today, John. Really appreciate everything. Do you want to get yourself a little plug here for you? Yeah, I'll give myself a plug. We're going to be on Zoom on Wednesday night, and we're going to cover the law and cover more of the law. We're covering Downs versus Bidwell. Last week, we took kind of a break because we had a lot of people. We had a couple of people from California that are part of your broadcast. that came and joined us because of some issues that they're having with the government over there. Who was that? Pardon? Who was that? I don't remember their name off the top of my head because we have a lot of people pop in, join us, and then pop out. Two ladies joined us. Hey, I tell you what, we've got some extraordinary people that watch this broadcast. And I realize this broadcast isn't for everyone because we get into such detail and we're not drinking the Kool-Aid, okay? Right. I have a question for you about the inauguration and state funerals that have been happening right now. What's your opinion on that? We're talking about the funeral of... Trader Carter. The peanut man? The traitor Carter. Well, my flag is flying upside down right now, my American flag. Okay. And it's been flying upside down for ever since I moved into, well, even before I moved into this house when I was in the other place. The day on the twentieth when President Trump takes office, it's going to be flipped back to the original status. What do you think about the inauguration proceedings and the state-sponsored funerals? Well, I think I'm not familiar with what you're asking me about the state-sponsored funerals. Well, I'm kind of out on all of this stuff because I really am. It's like I understand that there's some reason to do them, but at this point in time, I'm really hoping that President Trump is listening and decides to do a private inauguration just due to the threat and how many assassination attempts he's had on him. to keep his family safe and just think of the cost savings to that. Think of the savings of American taxpayer dollars to stop the pomp and circumstance for inauguration or for the funerals. I get it. Well, the funeral should have been funerals over with. I know, but what I'm saying is I think this procedure should be ended because we're supposed to be standing together as equals and And I don't understand a state funeral like that. I kind of understand it, but I just, I'm not. One or two days, and that's it. Yeah, I'm just not really much of a fan, quite honestly. But this is deep state behavior propaganda, so we've got to understand that and move on. Yeah, it is. But, you know, at the same time, we got to call it out. When we see it, we got to call it out and say, I don't think this is the best idea or best plan for the nation. But, you know, but we'll go along with it for a while. OK, well, I do need. Thank you, sir. And we will see you next week, Tuesday. You will. Bye bye. Bye. All right. I'm going to take a quick break here. Thirty seconds and I will be on with G.R. Mobley. Good morning and welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it is the fourteenth day of January twenty twenty five. And welcome to our show today. I'm going to welcome on our next guest, GR Mobley. How are you doing, GR? Do you have audio? I can't I don't hear you. Hang on one second, let's see if we can get this get this show on the road here. There we go. We'll see if we can get this working. If not, I'll call him, and we'll do it by phone. So there. Real news for real people by real people at the kitchen table. Let's see what you guys get, the way it is. So here, I'm just going to give him a call in a minute. You can hear me now. Oh, yeah, I can hear you now. How are you? Okay, StreamYard sometimes defaults to the laptop configuration and not my studio configuration. I'm doing good. Better than most, not as good as some. There you go. You're welcome to snap your camera on if you want to. Actually, so I just sent you a text. I forgot or realized that you do a video. I have all my video disconnected because a lot of the Patriots I deal with do not have high speed or broadband. And so when you use video or video conferencing, the software puts a priority to the video to where audio really suffers. And so... My audio is far more important because I do radio and I want to have good quality audio. So I always disconnect it and it takes me a little while to configure it. But next time I'll be on, I'll have video for you. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah, our system works really, really well with how we handle both audio and video. So the concern here isn't much of a, it's not a problem. So how are you today? And what are we going to be talking about today? The five, some five critical documents for the United States to return us to. I really like the one on nullification. I've got them all ready to go. You just need to tell me which ones you want me to queue up first, and then we will take it from there. Okay, so let me set the stage. As soon as the Constitution went into effect... Hamilton had some real hard challenges that he needed to push against and put into the Constitution that would have been violations. The first violation was the Assumption Act, and that was right out the gates basically in And Madison and Jefferson didn't realize that he had another card held very close to his chest. But what Hamilton did was he, in the Assumption Act, he kind of corrupted both the states, both the good states and the bad states at the same time. What he did was he assumed the debt for the states that couldn't pay their debt, that were literally at the point and the brink of revolution, like the Shays' Rebellion, because the northeastern states had a real hard time because they weren't deep pockets like the plantation south. So he offered a deal that would have basically exonerated them of their debt, that the federal government would cover that, and then they had a payout system that would kind of just help – you know, give the Southern because they, okay, the uniformity clause kind of kicked in and he said, well, we're going to kind of give the Southern, you know, the Southern states a benefit because we're giving the Northern states a benefit. And that's how we were selling it. And Madison said, no way you can't do this. And then there was a big deal at Madison's house one night because Jefferson was told and actually kind of was counseling and consoling Hamilton because he was really distraught because the northern states were possibly going to secede from the Union. because they didn't see any financial benefit, and they were hurting so bad. So he used that as leverage and got Jefferson to basically help him convince Madison to back off against the Assumption Act. So this happened at a dinner at Madison's house, and this concession was, and this really motivated Jefferson to help this happen, the concession was that D.C. would be a part of Virginia and Maryland, where it is today. So There was an advantage to them specifically, and then there was also this advantage that they were putting out in this welfare to the states. Bottom line, they didn't see the Bank Act that was coming around the corner. Once he assumed the debt, then all of a sudden the federal government had to become very aggressive in taxation, and they wanted to actually start creating treasuries and so forth where they could concoct a scheme of paying off their debt by using the bank and bonds and so forth. So Bottom line, when they went down this path of creating this bank in seventeen ninety two, the the Bank Act, this is when Madison and Jefferson were really beside themselves and they didn't know what to do. So they formed a Republican Party and they were in constant conflict with Hamilton trying to imply powers that didn't exist. And then in seventeen ninety eight, when both Hamilton and Jefferson were actually Jefferson was the vice president. They passed an act called the Alien and Sedition Act. It was actually four acts. And these acts created a limitation, actually made it illegal to speak ill of people in government. It also went after the importation of certain people, that the states had this right for twenty years to be able to import persons. And so... When they passed these four acts, this was literally a swipe against people's liberty. And this really hit Jefferson and Madison hard so much, so much so that they decided to engage to stop this. And so they went. They actually coordinated themselves, and Jefferson sent a letter to Kentucky, and nobody knew that Jefferson wrote this. As a matter of fact, this was one of the best-kept secrets until much later. He wrote the original Kentucky Resolutions, which is the first document out of the five that I sent you. And if you kind of do a cursory look at this document, what Jefferson does is he audits the Constitution. So what do you do when your contract's being violated? Well, if you're going to create a legal context to it, you really need to audit it because you need to identify what parts are being violated and what is the extents and so forth. And so that's exactly what he does in the Kentucky Resolutions of seventeen ninety eight. And go ahead. Can you give me those acts that that you were you were quoting in order? Actually, he does that in this document. Oh, really? Okay. Yeah, so if you kind of stream through there, you'll notice that I think it's in probably Resolution III, he actually cites the names of these. And back in those days, they weren't very good at condensing. These were really long, long names for these acts. But right here, what you're looking at in Resolution I is, He really spells the spirit out of how this Constitution was adopted, basically saying that the several states composed in the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. They called the federal government back in those days the general government because technically it wasn't a federal government. Now, this goes down into forms of government. There are confederations and federations. If you create a federation, then you have a federal government. If you have a confederation, then you have a general government. Technically, both are general governments, but the real difference is In a federation, the federal government has the majority of the powers. And if you look this up, a federation usually has most all the powers and that the states are basically administrative functions with a symbiotic relationship with this national government. A confederation is where there are very limited powers delegated and the residual powers are left to the states. So the question is, do we have a confederation or a federation? And Jefferson called it a confederation. And Madison talked about this national government or this general government. And in some contexts, they called it a federal government, especially when it came to the military and the coercion of taxation. But that was it. They didn't have any domestic powers. They were very limited. And so this is why he dove into this fact that this principle of unlimited submission to their general government was just not gonna be swallowed well. So he goes on and he basically says, that they constituted a general government for a special purpose, delegated to that government certain indefinite powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of the right to their own self-government. And so he basically calls out these acts as unauthoritative and of no force and so forth. And he's a lawyer, by the way, right? And so what he didn't do, what him and Madison didn't do in their plan in fighting the government was they didn't go to court. They didn't need to go to court. And so when you go through these documents, you'll actually realize why the court actually has no cognizance. They have no jurisdiction over matters not delegated. It's clear in Article III of the Constitution that the jurisdiction lies for the federal government to only those things arising under this Constitution. So when you look at, you know, life or when you look at, you know, abortion, when you look at marriage, when you look at the environment, when you look at energy or labor or housing, those things are not delegated. Even education is not delegated to the government. There's only one thing that the federal government has a responsibility. I should say the general government has a responsibility regarding education. Guess what that is? I don't know where you're going with this. Yeah. So you guys were talking about the military. They have a responsibility of training and preparing the people in the states to actually be able to serve in the militia standards that they create. So actually, if you look after they have the power to call forth the militia, they also have the responsibility of equipping In other words, everybody should be getting a handgun and a rifle from the federal government that's going to be a part of the militia. I agree with that entirely. And in fact, I've been saying that for a while, that it's up to us to actually equip our population and see that they are in fact trained in the militia. Right. And the purposes of federalizing the militias in that line above that, which would be to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions. They can't just call forth the militia because there's a war out there in Europe or Asia or wherever. The responsibility of the militia was to only guard the homeland. But anyway, so if you look at these... resolutions, if you go ahead and scroll down. And actually, if you go down to, I think, let's go to three, because this is where you'll find the names of these things. And so all of these highlights that I have in there are really critical that you want to read. But let me see here. I believe it's right here. Is it? No, it's not. It's actually in the fourth where he starts going through. So the fourth resolution is where he begins to audit each of these. And he lays out exactly what these things are called. And you can see right here, the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the day, blank day of July, seventeen ninety eight, entitled, quote, an act concerning aliens, close quote. And then there's, you know, so he goes through exactly what these are and how each of these amendments directly violate the Constitution. Therefore, once he basically lays out this, you know, how each of these are directly violating the Constitution, if you jump down to Resolution A, because I don't want to go through this. This would take hours and probably several weeks to go through reading it. Well, I think it's a good thing to do because we can give an overall... you know, an overall explanation to what we're talking about, but it's going to be important to go back through it and dissect it a little bit because it's almost like having just enough knowledge to be dangerous to yourself. You need to know things and you need to know them completely. So maybe what we can do is touch on all of these and then we can go back and dissect them later. Yes. So what I actually do with different Patriot groups is we actually sit down and read this and we record them so that they have their own germane questions on this. And I actually did this for my radio show because I have a radio show on Red State Talk Radio. But what we do is we read through these things. And as we read a part or what have you, I really stop if it's really important to highlight exactly what they were saying and the context to why they said that. Like in this very first line that's blue, it says that a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed. That right there shocked a lot of people. As a matter of fact, there was a legislator in Kentucky that felt it was too dire or too drastic language for actually being in these resolutions. So he submitted later after they passed these things, he submitted what he would have recommended, and somehow it saw the light of day. But most people try to confuse that with this, but the reality is this is what was passed on November And that line, that a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, this is the group that ultimately organized the states to actually form Continental Congress and to basically declare independence and revolt against Britain. They looked at this as a road or pathway to war or another revolution. And most people said, are you kidding me? We just got this new government and it's really great. We love it or what have you. And so... The other states actually, in reading that, they made insinuations that it was almost treasonous for Jefferson or the state of Kentucky to actually make these assertions, what he put in here. But as you go through this, the whole point of this is these resolutions were petitioning every state. In other words, he did the audit. He proved that these acts were direct violations of the Constitution. What he didn't do in this document, Madison does in the following document. Again, these two men were basically working together where he sent this off, I think, the end of October, and they sat on it in Kentucky for maybe a week when they passed it unanimously and sent it out. And so this resolutions or this set of resolutions was a petition to every state to unite in holding the federal government accountable. So when you look at this concept, and actually, if you get into Madison's report, we'll dive into that. When you look at the fact that who do you go to? when you have a contract and there's no court that has jurisdiction that can actually hear this contract or this contract dispute. Ultimately in contract law, the burden lies upon the parties themselves to resolve the problem. Nine times out of a ten, if it's just a regular contract, what ends up happening is the contract gets voided because somebody is not honoring it and it becomes void. Now, the cost or the, I'll just say, the consequences. Pardon me? Restitution or damages. There you go. Those types of things would probably have to go to a common law court because common law is the law in every state. If it's just a personal thing, like a marriage vow where there's a dowry or what have you, how do you enforce that when that's not within the state laws? The state has no jurisdiction over that. So we would go into a common law court because... We have actually two legal systems. We have a constitutional legal system and we have a common law system. The problem is we don't have common law courts. The judiciary and the Bar Association hijacked all of our legal processes into the constitutional law. And what I mean by that is the federal government can only hear cases regarding those things arising under the Constitution and outside of, you know, into the foreign domain of admiralty courts, maritime courts and so forth. The state is the same way. When we delegate powers to the state, if we didn't delegate to them to administer the common law courts, and actually, see, when all thirteen states joined the union, they all had their own state-sponsored churches. Therefore, the common law court was typically done and or administered by either the churches or the people themselves, and the state just basically did those things that it needed to execute and enforce. And so when they broke this relationship away from the churches, because the churches had a responsibility of compassionate services like welfare, education, health care, those types of things. That's why today our health systems are called St. Joseph's or St. Mary's or what have you. But anyway... when you look at the severing of this relationship, because almost all states in the very beginning had state sponsored churches. So when they divorced themselves through the eighteen hundreds, what ended up happening was there became an abyss. In other words, the churches started suffering because they weren't getting a little stipend from government to help the people. And so this in the Great Awakening in the early eighteen hundreds caused another problem. But I'm going down a rat hole. Let me get back to this. So here. So. So when Jefferson sent this out, Madison was sitting there waiting to go through this. And as a matter of fact, actually, there's one part in here that's really worth going into. And if you go up, I want to say it's probably in the sixth resolution where it talks about the importation. And so... Yes. Contra H provided deprived without due losses. Actually, maybe it's in five. It might be in five. I actually, I'm going to open this up myself so I can get to it a little faster. So forgive me. So when I'm looking at this, is it talking about the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now exist shall think proper to admit? In other words, one of these acts actually pointed out that states could not import certain people. Well, the Constitution actually allowed the states to have full control over the importation of persons. And as he points out, that it shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year of eighteen oh eight. And they just passed a law that says, hey, you can't start importing or you can't continue to import people from France because we don't like them. And they didn't say they were actually the federal government was constrained from being able to stop states. And the whole point of that clause was this was the importation of slaves. where the states actually, they didn't want to mention slaves, but the states actually had carte blanche authority to import persons. What that meant is that it wasn't an immigration process where one person would want to come here and basically submit, hey, I want to become a citizen. That's immigration. Immigration is initiated by the person that wants to come here, and they request to come so that they can become a citizen. So what's happening on the southern border is not immigration at all. It is literally an invasion based on the constitutional language. When we look at what they were doing here, they were actually bringing people in for slaves, and actually there were people coming in from France. By this point in time, there were a lot of people coming in from France because of the French Revolution. People were getting their heads cut off and so forth, and so America kind of opened its arms for the French to come in, and these states were importing them. And they wanted this to stop, or at least Congress did, because They weren't friends of the Anglicans, or I should say the Federalists, because the Federalists were Anglophiles, and the Jefferson and the Republicans at this point in time were what they call Francophiles. And so this was another division amongst the forefathers, but bottom line, The point is, when you read the Constitution, there is no transfer of the importation of people. In other words, when you read Article I, Section VIII, the federal government has no authority to import persons for refugee status or for any other purpose. Does that make sense? Absolutely. So what that means is that by bringing refugees in here, they were doing that under the auspices of the U.N. treaty that they signed in the The design for that was to literally be able to bring in blocks of people that could, over time, undermine the sovereignty of the states and sovereignty of the United States. The H-I-B visas right now, that's what they're doing with that. It's indentured servitude. All of this stuff, and it's for money. That's a money situation. And when you look at the impetus of all this, you can go back to the fact that they're using human beings as a commodity. Yeah, so when it comes down to enumerations, there's no enumeration that allows the federal government to actively go out and seek people. It's kind of like the court system is passive, right? In other words, they can't go out and say, hey, we hear you've been harmed. We want to make a case over this. They can't go out and do that. They have to wait for somebody to say, you know what, I'm going to take this to court. The same thing with immigration. This is why the only thing that was delegated to Congress was to make acts or to make laws for uniform rules of naturalization, not even immigration, naturalization. What is the process of these people to become citizens? Because technically, if you read the act of an uniform act for the naturalization of citizens, and I probably got that wrong, but it's a seventeen ninety five act that Congress passed. This was the responsibility of citizenship went to the states first. And when you read that act, if a state denied a citizen or removed citizenship from a person, that person was not going to be able to become a U.S. citizen because there's this process of reciprocity. If a person is a citizen in one state, they can go to any and every other state. Therefore, if a person becomes – so let's just say somebody immigrated into Kentucky and they couldn't become a citizen, so they went over to Illinois and Illinois let them become a citizen. Congress cannot let them become a U.S. citizen to give them reciprocity to go back into Kentucky. In other words, they're denied once the state denies them. And actually, when you read that act, the only way they can become a U.S. citizen is that that state that denied them citizenship by the act of the legislature removes that from them. And give me that name of the act again, please. It is an act for an uniform rules of naturalization of seventeen ninety five. And the reason why this is important, because this was kind of in play with the natural born citizen. When you read an act for the natural born citizen, I believe that was in seventeen ninety that defined how a person was to be a natural born citizen. And it was basically a. I'll just say a regurgitation of the laws of nations that Vital basically kind of published and put out there as all these nations were determining what was going to be the acceptable laws amongst the nations of Europe. And so the United States, when we went through the Constitutional Convention, they knew they had to basically make an appeal and link into the laws of nations because then Europe would have actually had more of a... What do you want to call it? More of a sympathetic ear for this new nation coming up called the United States because the big bully on the block, the empire of the world at the time, Britain, was basically already harassing us. So we knew we needed to get the other nations to align with us. So that's why the appeal and the integration of these connections to the laws of nations. So when you go through... When you go through, actually, this resolution here, and when you go through Article I, Section VIII, the federal government, or I should say the general government, creates a jurisdiction for people over crimes. Those two crimes would be crimes committed on the high seas, felonies and misdemeanors committed on the high seas, as well as crimes committed against the laws of nations. Both of those jurisdictions are external to the United States, and they created this jurisdiction to protect the citizens of So anyway, actually in this resolution, Jefferson points out that the federal government only has the authority over four crimes in that constitution. The two I just mentioned, as well as counterfeiting, as well as treason. And so, and I think it's probably in the second resolution if you're looking for it. That's what I was. I was looking for it. You can kind of keep me up with where you're at with the text. That's probably good. Helpful. Yeah, sure. And so right here. Okay. where he says, the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever, and it being true as a general principle and not one of the amendments of the Constitution, having also declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. So therefore, they only have, and still to this day, the only crimes that they actually can pull people into court over are those four crimes. That's it. Now, when they created the Prohibition Act, that gave them a new crime that they rubbed their grubby mitts and they created, actually, they started creating the FBI. And then they bolstered up the FBI and the ATF because of the Prohibition Act. But when they repealed the Prohibition Act, guess what they didn't do? They didn't actually dismantle the ATF and the FBI. And so they always have to use security, safety and threat. to create these unconstitutional, unlawful organizations, and then they never take them away. Right. So who has the responsibility of executing federal laws? Enforcing federal laws. If they have to go out and use guns to make sure you abide by a constitutional law, who has that responsibility? It is the militia, because right there in Article I, Section VIII, Subsection XIV, Congress will have the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union. That is the only place and that is the only entity that has the constitutional authority to execute federal law, which is why during the Whiskey Rebellion, They didn't create the ATF. They didn't create the IRS because it was about whiskey tax or it was about whiskey and taxation. So the ATF and IRS weren't created. What they did was they federalized four state militias, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. And they basically organized and went into Western Pennsylvania and arrested twenty four people. Those twenty-four people were tried for treason because they were revolting and protesting. They considered protesting riotous behavior unacceptable in a civil society. So that's why they were charged with treason and two were convicted. That's how important it is to understand what these men were doing in the very beginning when they were actually executing the Constitution. They proved that we could actually function within that. But as the federal government, and the reason why they use the term standing army in the constitution was deliberately to stop the federal government from being able to enforce its own laws. They knew that in England, the England, or I should say the King had the ability to enforce his own laws. So they wanted to make sure that the federal government had no ability to do any enforcement, which is why the militia was given that responsibility. Does that make sense? It does. And that's actually... I'm sorry, go ahead. Everything is upside down right now. Everything is with the collectivism and the way the power structure is, it's absolutely upside down. So... The Dick Act of nineteen oh three completely perverted our military system. The only way they can actually change the federal government involvement in the militia is through a constitutional amendment. They set standards. They provide the the weaponry. They create the the training for that so that everybody has a uniform understanding of what to do when they become deployed as a part of the federal army. But the whole context was that the states were to have this internal system of enforcing their own laws and protecting themselves. And so the militia was actually broken down by county and apportioned by county so that each sheriff had an appropriate amount of secure, or I should say, willing and capable people of serving in enforcing the law, suppressing insurrections or repelling evasions, that they didn't have to go to the federal government to do that. That only when they couldn't do it, they would make the appeal and the federal government would then start forming or federalizing other militias from other states to go in and help on the southern border or what have you. That was the whole design. And so when they created this standing army, that one line, it was really broken into, or I should say they broke it down in the Virginia ratification debates. You'll find it on the fourteenth of June, where they're going back and forth about the dangers of a militia, or I should say a standing army. The whole point was the mischiefs come under a standing army because then they can create laws and enforce anything that they want. Does that make sense? So this is where they can literally rain tyranny upon us because as Thomas Jefferson stated, you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country because if you become ignorant, then they can start pretending what the law is. And that's what we're dealing with today. They've assumed all, I mean, they have labor laws, they have housing laws, they have environmental laws. None of these are enumerated. So bottom line, the reason why these documents are so important is because when the government does something, what are we supposed to do when we need to fight it? We have to actually first audit the Constitution and say, where do you have the power to do this? And then we actually have to get the states to bind together and actually go after them. Does that make sense? It does. It's called interposition. And actually, if we got into Madison's, not Madison's, It is the Virginia Resolutions of seventeen ninety eight. And in that in that document, that's where Madison basically says we have to interpose. And as a matter of fact, he even points out that the state legislatures are duty bound in supporting that Constitution, that they have to oppose every infraction, not to allow anything to happen that does not belong or assume any powers or anything that the federal government is doing. The real problem they had in those days is they didn't have this virtual world. And so they had to create a government that was going to be representative. And so when you look at the Senate and the House of Representatives, they created a new form of republicanism. And I think I might have shared this with you, but it's worth going into in detail. Because republicanism, by definition, is a government where the people are represented. It is a representative government of the people. In America, they couldn't get any concessions from the little states because they knew if it was representative of the people, then these large population states would literally be able to marginalize and wipe out these smaller states like Rhode Island, Delaware, and so forth. And it was literally stated, you know, because they were going, why aren't you going to get on board with this? And they said, we don't trust you. And therefore, the compromise was creating and identifying the sovereignties of governments as well as the sovereignty of people and saying both shall be equally represented or appropriately represented. People are represented by apportionment or by population, and states have equal suffrage. This is how the states actually were able to protect themselves and maintain their sovereignty because they had control of the Senate. And so this concept of republicanism literally took a new turn, and it was totally an epoch. As a matter of fact, Madison uses that term, epoch, in the creation of the Constitution because we recognize the sovereignty of states, and that the states were sovereign in all things not delegated, therefore sovereign. If the federal government is exercising powers that they don't have or direct violations of the Constitution, then the states have the responsibility of enforcing their compact, that Constitution, because it's theirs. It was written for and by them. Actually, Jefferson, in this Resolutions, he basically calls that federal government a creature. That creature was created because the states ratified it and they said, okay, we're going to do this and we're going to create this little creature here. And it's supposed to serve us. It's supposed to serve us this way. And that's it. but everybody wants more power and it's just the natural, I'll just say the natural desires of man to assume more and more and more. And so that concept of absolute power corrupts, or I should say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So those principles really do play out because the desire, the avarice or the greed literally becomes a real thing. That's why they created this government with these real limitations. And I hate, I don't want to say I hate the Federalist Papers, but the Federalist Papers are just documents where these men kind of argued this thing called the Constitution in theoretical space. It had no legal binding. But when you look at the ratification debates, they argued it by nuts and bolts, and that's why they defined it. And that's why Madison really refers to the Constitution, or I should say the ratification debates, as the only documents to use. But in the Federalist Papers, this is what Madison said. He says... This is in Federalist Paper Ten. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependency on the people is no doubt the primary control on government. But experience has taught us that mankind or taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions must be used. And so those auxiliary precautions are these things called checks and balances. where they delegated to the courts only the ability to hear cases. They delegated to the legislature the power to create laws, and this is why they were considered the most powerful or was considered the sovereigns in our government, and that the executive only executed the laws, faithfully executed, and he had a responsibility of seeking... treaties or seeking agreements with foreign nations or in a governor's sakes, working with other states to basically grow their commerce and to help their state become more productive. I mean, in other words, doing positive things, but not being able to actually do negative things like assuming powers that they don't have. So when we look at the limitations of There were also other limitations in the Constitution that nobody sees because they weren't plainly written, i.e. the enforcement of the law was left to we the people. The enforcement of the Constitution was left to the states, which is one of the reasons why these five documents had to be written. And I wish Madison would have basically consolidated these before he died and says, hey, look, this is a great government, but in case of emergency, break glass and read these things. Because they didn't do that. They didn't do those things that most people would just say, well, it's obvious. They wrote on the Constitution. They wrote it on parchment with ink. Did they have to tell you that? No, but most people don't even think it's that anymore. They just think it's an electronic document that could be changed because the federal government has created an annotated or living Constitution. And because they've done that, everybody just thinks it is absolutely changeable because the Supreme Court says so. And the Supreme Court has no authority to do that. Anyway, I obviously can go on and on. So forgive me for grandstanding there. No, I mean, I think this is all things that we need to learn. And the best way to do that is just to sit and listen to somebody teach. And I think you're doing a great job. Did you get a chance to look at the color-coded Constitution? I don't know if I sent that to you. I did not see that. That's okay. It's okay. It's okay. I have two color-coded constitutions. The first one I actually copied from John Rowland off of the Constitution Society. This constitution highlights the violations to the Constitution or how certain parts of the Constitution are being violated. And then another color-coded constitution, which I think I actually attached. I think I just put the link to it. But I attached the actual enumeration colored constitution. And what I'm doing with this, it's in draft still. But the intent is to identify that is this line a role and responsibility or is it a power? If it's a power, then the federal government has some ability to actually create laws regarding that. So like they have the power to tax, so they can create laws regarding taxation, but the taxation can only be these ways. And so those things that they can actually create law on are literally Article I, Section VIII. Everything else, let's look at Article I, Section II, which defines the apportionment per state and per representative, that it lays out that a representative cannot represent any more than thirty thousand people. Can Congress change that? Absolutely not. It requires an amendment. And as a matter of fact, the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights was an amendment to literally change that. Most people think that the First Amendment was this amendment to freedom of speech and so forth. That was actually the Third Amendment. When you look at the Bill of Rights, there were twelve amendments that were submitted. And the last of the twelve, from three to twelve, those were actually, yep, there it is. And that's the enumerations. So from three to twelve were the ones that were actually added to the Constitution. And the very first amendment was actually an apportionment change where James Madison inserted that when the men in Congress that were serving got to a hundred representatives, the Congress would then change, or I should say the apportionment would then change to forty thousand. And then when they got to two hundred, it would change to fifty thousand and cap off at fifty thousand. Yeah, there you go. So each of those colors actually represents, you know, whether that's a standard, whether that's a power or what that is. And what what I need to do is I need to break it down even better, because most people don't even realize that there are things in the Constitution that give the states responsibilities under powers. And so what we do is we want to actually delineate that. So like you see right there, I've been saying that this below, these are state roles and responsibilities. Reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of officers and authorities. So that one little line that's a part of that line above. And so this really needs some serious editing so that when you look at this, you'll understand, oh, this is something that the states have to do. The federal government can't even touch this stuff. Well, and I think that in any organization, you've got to have those rules and the rails to keep everybody working together as a team. Right now, when we look at the way that our government is working, they just make up things as they go. Our attorney general right now is the poster child for that. Instead of sticking to what they're supposed to do, they're all over the place. So one of the old... And I think most everybody said this in their in growing up. You're making it up as you go along. Well, that's what the federal government's been doing. And so in really looking at the relationship of the people to their government, the one government that we institute, the government that we actually put our hands on and create technically is our county government. that our county governments, as the new, as the thirteen states created this constitution, all new states that joined the union were created by the county governments. In other words, when they created that state constitution, the county sent delegates to represent them into a convention, and they determined how to create that government, in what form, and the constitution where they delegated what powers to it. Had we the people, actually created our government with constitutions the way we should have and actually created it in the framework where we have an executive legislative and judiciary at the county level which we don't do today there's some states that do but if had we created a constitution and delegated those powers that we wanted that county to have only these things you can do then when the counties would have created the states, they probably would have included the line at the very beginning, powers not delegated to this state government are reserved to the counties and the people, respectively. Because really, when you look at the state government, the state government's a general government. It's supposedly to be like the federal. In other words, it's to be very limited, and the government that is supposed to be the most involved in our lives should be the county government. When Thomas Jefferson was asked about the government and its framework in America, he basically said, the political energy in America is outward flowing to where the decisions are made closest to the people that affect their lives. That the further away you get, the less ability does that government have to affect their lives. So it's distributive in nature. And when you look at the political energies like centrifugal and centripetal, centripetal energy is like communism where they want to consolidate everything to a central government. They make all the decisions. But ours, it's different. And all other governments in the world are literally centripetal energies where ours is literally supposed to be distributive, if that makes sense. Good. All right. So... I don't know how much longer you have. We got about six minutes left in your hour and same with mine probably, but... I think this is a good way to start this because there's so much information there. I think this is one of those things that it's going to take everybody a while to absorb all of this because most people have never been taught. We're still at the beginning of learning all of these processes. And certainly when new documents come forward that a lot of us have never seen before, it's going to take a little while to assimilate that and really understand what the power that we the people have, which has been usurped by these criminals that are in office. Right. So I'm going to make a presumption that your audience is predominantly Christian. And so I like giving people metaphorical imagery that kind of helps them place context to things. And so when a Christian looks at the Ten Commandments, and they see that commandment that thou shalt not commit adultery, Well, okay, that means to have extramarital affairs. And actually, any Christian that's a Christian that's read the Scriptures understands that actual line, that commandment, differently, because they know that it's not having extramarital affairs, but they know that when you have lust after somebody in your heart, who said that you've committed adultery already? Christ. Christ spelled that out. So as the Scriptures help redefine and help us actually place better and clearer context to what the laws are, when you look at the Constitution, the Scriptures of the Constitution are the ratification debates. This is why in the cod fishery bounties, or many of the lectures, or I should say, yeah, they were really lectures, but when they were debated over these different issues in Congress, when Madison was in there, he constantly brought up the ratification debates and actually held them and read them to them. During the Bank Act, he literally read parts of the ratification debates so that everybody would understand this is how the Constitution was defined. If we're demanding that it be followed, we have to demand how it was defined. And we actually have that, as I explained to you, I think, yesterday. If you're going to buy a car and I'm going to sell you that car, you're going to give me cash. You kind of said, hey, I got a lot of money here, and this is what I'm going to spend, and I'm going to pay for it outright. And I go, okay, great. And then we kind of find the car you want. We got the car. We got everything. But I just can't get you to pull the trigger and say, let's make a deal. You know, I'm buying this car from you. So I go and stipulate that as long as you're the owner of that car, as long as you own that car, you can bring it into this dealership and we'll wash and wax it once a week for you. And you go, wow, that's a big that's a great deal. You shake my hand. We go in and you sign the necessary papers. It's basically a contract that you're going to insure the car. You register with the state, blah, blah, blah. And then you go out and you come back and you say, OK, I'm ready for my car wash. And we actually do a palm plant on my face and go, oh, shoot, we didn't include that into the contract. And you know as well as I do that I just played the shyster move to say, oh, well, because it's not in writing, now you have to prove it. In contract law, if it is stipulated and it can be proven that it was stipulated, then it is the law and it has to be enforced. And the Constitution was basically stipulated in those ratification debates. And I would think that everybody would want to know how that was stipulated so they could actually understand how it was sold and what we can hold them to. But for some reason, everybody goes to the federalist papers, which that doesn't happen. Those are just editorials and paper. They weren't even the stipulations of the compact. Does that make sense? They had no presence within those ratification debates. Those words weren't uttered. What was uttered is legally binding. What wasn't uttered and what's in the newspaper is just in the newspaper. Hopefully that clarifies that. Yeah, it does. And I think this is a great process to go through to actually evaluate what the proper process is. Right. Yes. Yeah. So this is this is amazing. And I really I really appreciate your time and taking the time to go through the things that you know, your your your history as a retired from the Marine Corps in nineteen ninety eight. You were in the intelligence community, either as a Marine or as a discipline leader or an engineer leader for over thirty five years. You've got a lot of information that you've been able to accrue over the years. And I really appreciate you sharing this with us and helping to educate everyone. Because at this point in time, I think that's what all of us need to do is help educate each other with what we do know or what we come across. So that's the best way to help the United States right now is to get everybody going in the same direction through knowledge and information. Right. Illiteracy or illiteracy regarding the Constitution is what's killing us because, like Thomas Jefferson with ignorance of the law, because we're so ignorant, they can actually pretend that they've created a myriad of law that is actually unconstitutional. It's all tyranny. It's all pretended law. That's right. It's just like all of the unconstitutional lockdowns and such, you know, in our modern society. The modern translation of this is that we have this stuff going on around us all the time. And it's the fallout of watching, taking away the protections one at a time and compromising the integrity of it. Because evil walks in and it doesn't just usually slam you in the face. It's insidious. It's step by step by step. And it never sleeps. It never sleeps. It is the most persistent thing in our lives. So we have to fight it and constantly fight it. That's right. And the way we do that is by knowledge and also growth. I mean, God walks us through all of this to the point where we are growing in our knowledge as well as our convictions to become more like him. And all those invisible characteristics, which you can't put a price on this. I mean, for everybody out there, how many people do you know who you can bomb proof, say they're bomb proof, will not budge on issues of morality or integrity? I don't know many because a lot of most people, you know, you hold a carrot out in front of them and they'll bite that carrot. They'll take the bait every time. instead of holding to those things that we know are right. Right. So what's beautiful about our government is we've never empowered them to basically create laws regarding morality. They can't regulate morality. So actually, who regulated morality? Again, going back to the common law, the churches, correct. The churches were the ones that performed marriage, and actually, they didn't necessarily allow divorce. As a matter of fact, you know, what had to happen was men would have to run away and go into the Wild West and abandon their family. Because if it was that bad or they were that bad of a man, then that's what they did because they couldn't get divorced. Because the church really, when Alexis de Tocqueville came to America, he made the comment that America is great because America is good. And so that key word right there, good, means that they were going to church and they were allowing the church to regulate their behavior, not government. Well, and I think what you would see is you would see a community coming together after a while. I mean, my husband talks about it all the time. that the people in the area, he's raised a very rural Iowa. And if they saw somebody that was not doing the right thing, the guys in the area would explain it to them very clearly on what was, what was to be done. So there was a sense of community accountability. So they didn't, they didn't the dads and the uncles because they had strong families. They're not going to sit there and tolerate somebody beating up one of their daughters. And you know what I mean? That sort of thing, there was more patrolling of bad behavior on a community level and within a family. You didn't know where to go because you're dependent on each other. People learn to get along better and they learn to improve. And I think that that's something that can't be overlooked, that the structure of the family was a protection. Right. Absolutely. So... And the church. The church, everybody knew each other. Those communities came together. So what we went through was really we just glossed over the Kentucky Resolutions or Jefferson, what he wrote. If you want, we can come back. We can kind of go through this. I don't have a radio show per se. I actually have, it's more of an educational because we actually read documents. And I go, well, you know, if you love reading or hearing audio books and hearing the words read to you, then my show will actually appeal to you because I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here to empower. I'm here to give people information. the education. And so that's all I do for my one little stipend of hour a day. And so people can download this and actually when you're driving for your commute, you can start learning about these documents because that's what we do. We read them to you. I don't want you to take my word for it. I want you to hear exactly how that constitution was defined, exactly what they wrote the law to be and how they defined it anyway. So Do you comment on it so that if you distill it down, so you read it, and then do you comment on the section to make it in context? Yes, correct. Well, I would love to do that continuing on here because, you know, quite honestly, I'm way more interested in digging down into this sort of thing than the surface level distraction. You know, we go there once in a while, but we need to know this sort of thing. We have to know it. so this is this is what I will say this is a kind of a definitive position I have you don't know what they said unless you've read it and so I can hear it over you know I've basically talked a little bit over this and kind of generalized and encapsulated but until we actually read word for word now you know exactly what they said because it can't be taken out of context because you've literally gotten it from one end to the other because how many times have we heard preachers actually only cite one little line out of the scriptures, and then when you actually read the rest of it, you go, oh my gosh, that's completely different than how he sold that, the preacher, what have you. Because that's what the Catholic Church did. Right? I mean, that's how Christianity moved forward after they basically created it as their government, Rome, anyway. The point is that by reading it, so if you want to go through that, we can read, I'll actually stop you and say, okay, what you just read, this is what's important so that you understand the story behind that. What did he mean by this? Like, you know, the committees of conference and correspondence, that was... That was a very deliberate and very, I'll just say, harsh thing to say that we actually have to take action and we got to form these committees to do that. And everybody goes, wow, that's almost like we're going to go to war. Is that what's he talking about? And and so when you actually read the Kentucky Resolutions of seventeen ninety nine, you'll actually hear Thomas Jefferson use the words we can only lament from what the state's insinuations to our resolutions were. So one of the things I also did, and actually Woody out of Virginia got these out of the Virginia library because the responses from the other states, see, Virginia and Kentucky, when they sent these resolutions out, these other states actually replied back to Kentucky and Virginia. And some of the defenses that they made were just like completely contrasting how the Constitution was sold. I mean, some of these states were literally saying, hey, the federal government has full jurisdiction. When you go through the ratification debates, we go out of our way to say, hey, look, they can only bring in things that are underneath that Constitution. As a matter of fact, John Marshall in Virginia stated that if the government creates a law that's not enumerated, the Supreme Court is basically supposed to null and void it. That's what they're supposed to do. But they're not doing that. And they're not doing their job in protecting us from this tyranny. They've been actually working together because guess who was responsible for actually changing how the Constitution was understood? It was John Marshall himself. So when we hear what John Marshall said in the ratification debates, then we hear what he says in his rulings. We can't look at his rulings as legitimate because they contradict what he said in the ratification debates. Does that make sense? It does. Okay. All right. Yep. It absolutely does. Because what, unfortunately, the fallout of what we're seeing right now is, is people using the pretended law for their own gain and most of politics is an industry that's self-perpetuating right for money it's unfortunate so and I think that I think that it's all about the money it's all about the gain and the money that they're getting from it and if we go back to the pure form it was it was community it was it was for what we believed in and it was for freedom and liberty Right. Right. Absolutely. So. Well, let's let's do this. Let's let's get a plan. We're going to go. We're going to end the show here and then we'll come back and we'll talk about. So stay on. Stay on when I end the show and then we'll talk for just a few minutes and then we'll see how we're going to approach this going forward. So this is what we do. You're new to my show. So but this is what we do is we talk just as people talking and. And then we decide how and which direction we're going to go with it from here. I find this to be incredibly helpful as well as very informative. And I really want to thank you for your time and your knowledge on this. This is awesome. I think I would love to continue to share this with anyone who really wants to know what's happened. And I like how you tie in what you're talking about. about with the actual history and context. I think that's incredibly helpful. And the stories of the people that surrounded what was going on at the time. So I find it to be very, very interesting. So why don't we do this? Let's say a prayer. We always end with a prayer. And then we're going to see you guys tomorrow with Liberty Essentials, with our normal Liberty Essentials in the morning at nine. And we will continue on and we'll continue this discussion. And I'll let you know when that is, everybody. So let's go ahead and go ahead with prayer. Would you like to pray or would you like me to? By all means, go ahead. My voice is a little dry. Go ahead. I'll do tomorrow. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so very much for giving us time together that we can, in a very civil way, dig down to what the Founding Fathers had meant with the Constitution, with the law of the land, and with defending and protecting our nation. We've seen so many things that just break our hearts. And we know it's not right. But we also realize that now we have to do the work to do the maintenance that's required to bring the United States back into compliance with what was meant at the beginning of our country. That's those things that honor you. The nation was built on Judeo-Christian principles. And we acknowledge that because you've got the way out of this. It's all there. You've given us. the way to live at peace with our neighbors and to serve you on this earth. It's your sandbox, and we're willing to play by your rules. We just need to know exactly what to do, and we trust you to lead us out of the captivity that we are in currently, which very much is a Babylonian captivity. Thank you so much for everything you've done, for the beautiful world you've given us, for the snow, for our animals, for our friends, our family, for good food, for sunlight, sometimes for rain and all those things that work together to make this world work. We want to follow you. We want to be more like you and we accept your gift as Jesus Christ is our salvation and the atonement for everything we've ever done wrong. And all we have to do is turn to you and you do give us the way out of all situations. You give us the answer because you're our savior, not just in eternity, but also here day by day. Thank you so much for loving us so much and for walking with us. We just thank you so much. There's no words to express our awe. and our acknowledgement of all that you are. And it's going to take eternity to even figure all of it out. I don't think we'll ever get there. But we thank you for taking us step by step as your children along this way. Please give us the feet to walk the path that you have in front of us by your strength, by your honor, by your mercy, by your leading and your provision. We thank you so much for everything. You've been a great friend to us, and we want to be a friend to you also. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. So there we go. So boys and girls, this is the part of the show that we're going to go to. Ding, ding, ding, ding. Go to brandenburgforgovernor.com because I'm the best non-conceiter 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, in cowboy boots about this. We'll see who wears them better. So at any rate, go forth in this day and be joyful for whatever it brings. Because even in good times and in bad times, God uses everything. for his good purposes. When we fall and maybe we do something wrong, we actually learn what not to do the next time. It's a gift that God gives us that's greater than when things go smooth. We're going to go into a time, I'm going to guarantee you this, that's going to be a little bumpy. It's going to be very bumpy. We need to prepare for that mentally. Mentally tough, with a heart, turning towards God. And he'll lead us out of everything. But first seek ye the kingdom of God and everything else will be added to you, to us. And see the United States and what we're going through as an us. It is an us going forward as we the people. Now we know the difference and we can use discernment and to being able to discern what when we're talking to somebody who is just a normal human being making mistakes in life, trying to do their best, but getting through, but they just love their families and friends, but we make mistakes. People are very flawed because we're learning. We're children of God. We're still learning to walk and we have to give the people around us the grace and mercy to when they fall and don't always do quite the right thing. Give them a chance to get back on the road and do the right thing again. Help them when they fall. If they're doing it intentionally and they're intentionally harming people, that's another whole category altogether, okay? But you have to have discernment to be able to know what and who you're talking to a little bit. What are their motivations? Are they trying to harm people? Are they trying to take advantage of people? That moment in time, you can say, especially against the United States, that's treason, and that's punishable by hanging. When people are intentionally harming others, look at the drug gangs, the cartels. They know what they're doing. There's no excuse for this. When the people that are in office are doing the wrong thing, a lot of them are blackmailed. I still have a problem giving them a pass on that. If someone tells you to do something wrong, scream it from the highest mountain. Don't let them hide. Go at them. Go after them. Run right to the fire. Make it painful for them. and never back down and be unwavering on those things that we believe in and that we fight for we fight for what we love not because of what we hate though sometimes that's kind of in the mix so with that said everyone realize there's a lot of good people that are out there fighting and trying to get to the bottom of this it's a tedious job it's work to get to the bottom of things that's not one of those things that those with a play play play mentality necessarily have that want to sit at the table and just talk. We have to study to show ourselves approved. It says it in the Bible, but it also translates into figuring out how to restore the republic, constitutional republic that we have. And it takes work. It takes intuitiveness. It takes taking time to ponder those things so that we have the weapons of warfare that we need to hold these people accountable and and make sure that the government is serving we the people. I have a problem with a lot of things going on. I talk to everybody, but we're going to get this thing figured out. There's going to be justice for what we've seen and what's happened. And we're going to do this together under God, one nation under God. So have a wonderful day today. God bless you all. God bless everyone you love and all those whom you love. And God bless America. Make it a great day. Mentally tough, with a big heart, God leading. And we will see you tomorrow going into Liberty Central. And GR will be back on in a future time. So stay on the line, GR, and we'll talk after we're done here. Have a great day.