Published June 16, 2025, 9:02 a.m.
9am Vicky Davis Technocratic Communism The United Nations as an organization is world communism. The strategy to impose world communism on the people of the United States (and the other countries in this hemisphere) has been economic rather than military as the people were led to believe it would be. It's our own leaders who were the Pied Pipers leading us to this demise of the U.S. I'm working on a timeline that shows the who, when and what. 10am Daniel Richard - Daniel Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire has brought a case against the state, which claims that N.H. election laws have been illegally altered by the executive and legislative branches of the state government over the years, without the consent of the voters, thereby making the legislature’s actions unconstitutional. On Monday, October 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on their own initiative, scheduled oral arguments for November 29th, 2023 at 9am, in a highly-anticipated election law case of Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al. involving the executive and legislature branches of government repeatedly violating the voting rights of Mr. Richard, and the people of this State, by altering the mandatory election provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire established by the people by legislative fiat. This case poses the following questions. Who is qualified to voter in New Hampshire? Who is qualified to vote absentee in this State? Who is required to “sort,” “count” and certify the votes in the towns and cities? Are voting machines constitutional in N.H? Can the legislature delegate its law-making power under the State and U.S. Constitutions to an unelected body of bureaucrats (the NH Ballot Law Commission) to make election laws (including voting machine laws), and the ability to suspend State and Federal election laws? The use of vote tabulation equipment to conceal the counting of un-verified and uncertified absentee ballots and the illegal certification of the elections results. X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1dRJZYmbpgQGB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1076448714384630 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6uuzq9-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6162025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richar.html https://rumble.com/v6uuzod-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6162025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richar.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-06-16-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richard-pro-se:7 BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, Vicky Davis, Daniel Richard
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it's the sixteenth day of June twenty twenty five. Welcome to our show today. I hope everybody had a wonderful weekend and happy Father's Day to all the dads out there and family time and all that good stuff for this weekend. And I just want to say thank you to all the dads out there who tirelessly and sometimes without thanks, a lot of times without thanks, just keep going to take care of their families and their communities. This is what it's all about. And just very honored to know so many good dads out there. It's amazing. So today we're going to be on starting out with Vicki Davis and the Technocratic Tyranny. And at ten o'clock, it'll be Daniel Richard. And we'll be talking about his pro se cases. And thank God he's doing better. He was not doing too well for a little while there, which is why we had a little bit of time off with him. But he's got things under control now health wise. And I think I think we're having a good show today. So I'm going to start right out this morning with bringing Vicki on. We were talking just a little bit before the show. Hey, Vicki, how are you doing? Hi, just fine. Thank you. Yeah, I love this segment with you. I mean, we've been out a lot. I think we've kind of become friends, you know, which is kind of a cool thing across the country, which is fun. Yeah. Well, there are just so many interesting things to talk about and I like your format where it's just like a free flow conversation, which isn't the way with most radio programs. Yeah, it's kind of crazy because the thing it is, is, you know, I talked about the Kennedy Center last week a little bit and going there to watch the opening of Les Mis. And I'm just not believing anything that I'm seeing out there on the news because it's all fake. I'm sorry. It's still fake. The news is fake. The alternate news is fake. This is why I like doing the program the way that that I do the interviews is that it's just two people sitting down. We have no script. It can go in a million different directions. I get up. I never know which way the show is going to go. Quite honestly, it's all off the cuff, really. And we find things as we're talking. learning from each other. And I think that's a strength of it right there is that we're real people just talking, having a conversation as imperfect as it is at times because it's not scripted out. And I think that there's something really beautiful about that. When we were just talking about the stuff with President Trump and my thought on this is that the good guys are in charge. It sometimes looks like the bad guys are in charge, but we really need to talk about this because sometimes I think the biggest thing that's being accomplished is vetting people on whether they can figure out the art of war, what's actually happening, or if they're just running after the new narrative, whether it's mainstream media or alt media or whatever it is, They never get down to the structure of what's actually happening, who's who in the zoo, how they're connected to get to it. It's just like, oh, we're going to we're going to stop. You know, we're going to jump on this issue right now and we're going to run with it. But the problem with it is, is it's being funded by some very bad people. If people can't see what's actually going on, we've completely lost the war. We have to get into real research. And such. And we were just talking about that with President Trump. I think he's bait. I really do. I think he's bait for everything. It is my opinion that going to and I was there. I don't care what anybody says. I was there and I saw what was going on. I do not believe he was at the Kennedy Center. And I was there. Nobody saw him. He apparently went through the red carpet. They kind of looked like it was staged for people to acknowledge him in the theater. There were people that were yelling, oh, you know, President Trump is a commie, that kind of stuff. There were drag queens in there. It's like, come on, people. I was sitting in the back of the orchestra area. I was supposed to be sitting right next to President Trump, but they moved us around at the last minute, which is fine. It's fine. I don't really care. I'm here to be helpful, not to be in the spotlight, quite honestly, which is why I have my dopey little podcast here that I keep going with because I feel like we should be working rather than just talking and trying to do it for attention. Let's put it that way. When he came out, allegedly when he came out, and I look at the video, I really believe that, I don't know, I believe that most of it was CGI or it was a double because there was too many things that didn't line up. And am I concerned about it? Not really because I do know enough people who are working behind the scenes that it is my belief that the good guys are in charge. But I believe that we're going through a vetting process right now to see who's going to see through the illusion, who is going to keep going with the illusion because they don't want things to change or who sees things for what it is and is willing to put the truth out there and saying the bullshit meter is pegged. Okay. And, um, you know, we were told that this was going to be a black tie event. I'm going to tell you what, half the theater was empty. There was a lot of empty, empty seats. which lends itself really well for CGI manipulating the crowd scenes. I was there. I saw it. When they acknowledged President Trump on it, you couldn't get near anywhere to even see if there was even anybody in the box. It was on the orchestra level and such. I don't know if he was there. I didn't see him. Nobody could get near where you could see him. And why is it that he and Melania keep getting younger and younger and younger? Why is it that if you do a height analysis that President Trump is never much more than six feet tall? And now Melania is going in flat shoes. When they went to Italy, she was in flats and they were they were same height. OK, that wasn't President Trump. He's about six, four. And, uh, Melania, even if she wears, you know, five inch, five inch heels, she might be kind of close to him, but she's, she's in flats a lot of the time now, but I don't believe they were there. And, uh, and I was there, which is fine. There's, there's the, the people that are working to write the nation don't, they're not going to broadcast it. They're just not going to broadcast it because I don't think they can. So I think that what's happening is hoping everybody kind of wakes up without having to scream it in their ears, because I don't think people will believe what we have to say anyway. I don't believe it because there's so much brainwashing and conditioning, predictive programming and cognitive dissonance and all that sort of thing. There was no protesters in D.C. that I saw. And I was there. I didn't see anything. There were a few. I should have got pictures of the drag queens that were there. But there are drag queens that were seated in the theater having to get past Secret Service and all of this sort of thing. They're not going to tolerate any of this stuff anywhere near President Trump and Melania. Not a chance. And then you see Speaker of the House. say something about being a wartime speaker. President Trump clearly is a wartime president, which means there's a lot of things that aren't being followed, which should be going on right now. And they're just not, especially when you look at what's going on in the Middle East. I just think that things are so much deeper than what's being said. And that's fine. I mean, I told a couple people there, I'm like, well, he ain't here. I can, I can, guarantee you that I'm not buying any of this. If he is in fact a wartime president, commander in chief, but a wartime, a wartime president and, or if the military is in control to restore the Republic, not the democracy, which is the IQ for dummies. Whenever that, that word comes up, we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional Republic. So we have to look through it through the lens of, of education, information, and reasoning, because it wasn't what it looked like. The red carpet, we went down the red carpet after everyone was through on and on. Well, guess what? I kind of think we were the only real people that went down it, if you really want to know the truth. In the afternoon, they had the red carpet rolled out to the street, and they had some people, regular people just mulling around out there in their t-shirts and tennis shoes and such. And then when it came to the red carpet, the front door, the whole front door was completely blacked out. You couldn't see in, you couldn't see out. It was definitely a sequestered area. And we went around behind the cameras and such and such and just kind of walked. But we walked out. We went back in. There was about six of us that worked together that were there. We walked back in. We walked back out and came back again. And it was not what people think it was. Not at all. I was there. I saw it. I don't care what anybody says. If you weren't there, you don't know what was going on at the Kennedy Center. Yeah. You know, there are a lot of people there that I knew, wonderful people. But once again, you got to ask further questions about what's going on. Yeah. Well, it's interesting that you say that. I had a similar experience when I really realized, you know, how much of what's on the Internet really is just... It's illusion. It's illusion. Exactly. And on the fifth anniversary of September eleventh, there was supposed to be a big event at the area. They hadn't rebuilt the Freedom Tower or whatever the hell they're calling it. But I was there and there were about ten people. I expected there to be a huge crowd of people there that questioned the nine-eleven story. Nope, nothing, dead action. And that is really kind of an interesting thing to think about, going back to the beginning of television everywhere, you know, which I don't know. Well, I started watching TV as, you know, as a kindergartner, you know, and there was an evolution to television. Well, in, what was it, what was it, That's when Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called The Technocratic Era. I think that's what it's called, The Technocratic Era. And there were a group of futurists, you know, at the top universities connected to like the National Academy of Sciences and so forth. And they had a project on the future. predicting what the future was going to be as we entered, as we left the industrial age and we're entering into the information age. And so what this group of people did, and they were all, if not high profile, but within academic circles, they were high profile. And they did this project to predict the future. And, of course, you know, one of those people was Buckminster Fuller. He was a futurist. And all of our environmental doctrine basically came from Buckminster Fuller. You know, that we don't need to extract any more resources. We can just recycle what we have. But it occurred to me that of all the people in positions of power to direct the future, it would be the people in the academic circles, right? National Academy of Sciences, the NIH, all of that. I suspect that that's when it began that the United States began living in a fantasy world created by these futurists. And part of the illusion of the futurists is that we're running out of resources. We've got to conserve all of these resources. Well, what happened there, of course, was that government was able to exert more and more and more control over over people and our business life and whatever. In the nineteen eighties, they began exporting manufacturing, which left us with an economy of services, you know, like information services. And I don't know whether they actually believed the idea. that everybody could be employed in the services industries. I don't know if they actually believed that or just didn't care what they were about to do. Well, I think it was intentional because if you don't manufacture and you ship all of the manufacturing overseas, you can destroy a country because they've always been out to destroy the United States. That was stated. And I believe the forties. And so it was like, they, they, if they can destroy the United States, the American spirit, we're kind of a bunch of mutts who are unwavering in believing in our freedoms, probably more than, more than any culture on the globe, honestly, because the rest of them had already been somewhat subverted, my opinion. Yeah. Conquered. Yep. Um, yeah. And so the, uh, the united states was the last bastion but when they implemented the national environmental policy act of that's when that's when they began globalization of our government because what that legislation did was to create the council on environmental quality which was to work internationally to to go to the um to stockholm conference on human settlements um but what the council on environmental quality did was to create the the environmental protection agency and that initially they were only supposed to work within government but somehow over time They were given authority to regulate and control and dictate regulation for the whole rest of our country, primarily over business at first, but then, you know, progressively year by year as they wrote their regulatory or exercised their regulatory authority. They have been incrementally putting businesses out of business or making it cost prohibitive to run that kind of business. So basically, they've been cannibalizing our economy decade after decade after decade. Well, look what look at what that does. It's like if they disable Americans from having the entrepreneurial spirit and the the autonomy as well as their ability to provide for themselves, you can't make it into a slave nation, which is what they've been wanting from the beginning is basically, you know, a slave nation where they control all the resource, the resources. So like gas and oil, there's no scarcity of gas and oil. We got gas and oil all over the place, and it's renewable. There's many studies on that. They ran all of the wells out in Colorado dry, so they capped them off. About ten years later, they came out, broke the wax seal, and they were full again. Tell me how that happens. Tell me why they can get oil under bedrock. I can't even imagine people... Even thinking how many dinosaurs had to die all at the same time or vegetation to make the amount of oil, gas and oil that we pull out of this planet on a daily basis. It is absurd. Yeah. Well, that whole thing, I think they started that rumor because of the La Brea tar pits in California. Yeah. And they might've found a dinosaur bone close by or something, but they came up with this stupid narrative about oil being from the carcasses of dinosaurs. I mean, it's so stupid, but- It's a stupid lie. I mean, if you're gonna make up a lie, make up a good lie. That's not even a good lie, you know? Yeah, no. People were very naive back in those days I did a PowerPoint called America in Distress, and I have one of the slides is Einstein on one side, and then Andy Griffiths as sheriff, what was it, sheriff something, and Barney Fife on the other side. And that's who the American people basically were, you know, was the Andy Griffiths and Barney Fife, and then Einstein on the other side. And I really do believe that the futurists thought, well, you know, we can manage things by, we can create the future by managing the people's understanding of the world, you know, their view of the world. and with the the advent of computer systems they could do it even better you know create a false reality it's like the united states is just one big truman show For real, right? Right. So we were talking about all the things that President Trump has, you know, that he has reversed. You're more concerned about it than I am. I'm kind of like looking at this and smiling, going, I think he's the bait. I think he's going to see who's... either is picking up on it, which is a great exercise. How is the country supposed to be run? Not how it is run, because it's not run right at all. There's nothing being done correct from bottom to top of the way this is for decades and decades and decades run. So we're learning more. What they did, just like, you know, when we talk on Monday mornings, we're going down the path of seeing how they've destroyed the United States through treaties and unconstitutional agreements and the technocracy that they have put in place in order to basically own all of our data and manipulate the information in front of us. And that includes alternative media. If we've all been watching with USAID funding that they've not only been funding mainstream media, they've been funding alternative media. So all of these distractions keep us away from the real stuff, which is what I like to focus on. I really like focusing on the real stuff. I don't really like fantasy world, quite honestly, I just want to work with what I have and know what I have. So I can work with what I have in reality land. Well, that's what I started doing was going back in history. And Part of the reason I started doing that was because of outsourcing and the mass importation of H-Bs. And all of a sudden, I couldn't find work anymore. And I'm going, you know, WTF is going on here, you know, where they're importing people to take jobs that I used to do. At the same time, They're basically opening the border, and we're getting mass migrations from Mexico. And at the same time, we're losing our manufacturing capabilities because they're leaving the country. I mean, it's just like kind of... mass chaos you know we've kind of lost it that we have some of it but I think it's going to go to to um I think this is where I predict the future is going to go which is kind of exciting to me because I love this kind of thing is these lar if you look at what the military has done the military has gone to smaller um tactical uh strategies rather than having lots of money into very expensive planes and ships and such, they can do the same thing, only more damaging and a little bit more sneaky by using drones. The drug cartels were doing the same thing. Instead of trying to come in in large amounts, they would launch like a hundred small homemade, you know, submersibles or semi submersibles and hope that even one of them got through with the cocaine before the Coast Guard blew them out of the water. Right. And so, but they, they were still making more money doing it that way than taking the large shipments across and, and collect collectively, um, having a larger collective, they diversified a little bit. And I think that's what we're seeing in the military as well as, you know, the drug traffickers are doing that. And we can assume that probably the future is going to be the same way for manufacturing instead of the large corporations controlling the manufacturing, which they should never have done. They should have been enforcing antitrust for a very long time. Go to cottage industries, go to small farms, or groups of families or people that get together and do like a CNC machines, you know. The problem is you can't employ enough people. The reason they came up with the model of like a small business with ten people or less, that was part of the illusion of being a nation of small business enterprises, but they're not really small business enterprises. They are kind of like a spin-off from a big corporation to give the illusion of a real small business. they still get their supplies from big suppliers. See, they've created illusions on every level. And the education system is one of the biggest. Because as they gutted our economy of the manufacturing, which was where the big employment centers were, you know, like GM in California or... Detroit, and places in Ohio where they had the big manufacturers. When they shipped those offshore or shifted them down to Mexico, build cars in Mexico, they left a lot of people unemployed. And so they created this system to create an illusion of a small business economy. Well, I'm here to tell you that you can't have a strong economy based on small businesses. Small businesses are nothing in terms of having a functioning, powerful economy. Yeah, I'm kind of I'm kind of that would be a good thing to discuss, because I think that small businesses, even if it's an illusion, we've got to we really need to dive into this a little bit more because I'm a small business advocate. I really am. I think that if people if we can decentralize everything. And go back to a simpler time, not not not these. this, this booming stuff all the time. And I understand if people get together, they have a higher quality of living in general. But when you look at the dynamics of having a small business and being able to control the to pivot, because, you know, I've, I've always worked in a company owned or a family owned type of a structure, right? My dad, my dad had his own business and then I, I've worked for a couple of companies and I thought it was pretty pointless. Actually. I like running my own ball, you know, and running my own game. And I, I, I've done pretty well at it, quite honestly. So you can, the problem that I see when you have the big companies is if there's a problem, they run aground and they're done. Because it's like a big ship. You don't just turn it around quickly. A small business can pivot really quickly and adjust to the scenarios around us, which if a person is able to think their way through it, not get stuck with the current model. it works really, really well. So like we may start, I may start something, but if there's an opportunity there to do something a little differently, we can just, we can just pivot with it, which, which is, which is kind of amazing. And it's, it's fun. It's like playing in a sandbox that you are a participant instead of just showing up. to dig with your same shovel every day, knowing that, okay, somebody's going to tell you where to dig. I'd be bored out of my mind. I couldn't do it. I absolutely couldn't do it. And I wouldn't do it. And quite honestly, when I look at the things that we've been able to do, not just for our, you know, our community or for employees, there's so many things that we've done for people that nobody even know that we did it because we don't have to go to a board. We don't have to go get a bunch of approvals to do it. We'll just say, this is what we're doing, you know, and that's what we do, you know, as long as. And I think that that's kind of a big deal. It doesn't take as long to shift and move around. You've got to take yourself out of your own situation and look at the entire country. We're a country of over three hundred million people. And there is such a thing as scale matters. Scale matters. You can't run a big city with small businesses. You can't. Like New York City. Okay, take New York City or San Francisco. They have huge companies. They are the headquarters of large corporations. They employ thousands of people. You can't replicate that economic that economy with small businesses just ain't happening you know so you've got to you've got to take yourself out of your own situation and look at the entire country from a realistic point of view you know what's real and what isn't they started the idea of small businesses because they were exporting the big manufacturing companies over to china um and, you know, created lots of jobs over in China. And then they started on services jobs, created lots of jobs in India, you know, putting us out of business here. And then, so their mitigation was that these small businesses were supposed to be training enterprises. And a lot of them, most of them were sponsored by the big corporations that had left the country. They were supposed to be like training, like small classes of training for, quote, entrepreneurship. But you can't build an economy out of small businesses. That's one of the things that Goldman Sachs was doing. They had a program. of creating small businesses. Meanwhile, they were setting up the stock market with those derivatives and whatever, and they basically bled our country out. through the stock. I guess that's my point. It's like the big corporations, first of all, they violated every antitrust situation that you could possibly say that you could have possibly stick, you know, quote, not not only that, they're buying up American land, the big corporations in the corporateocracy have destroyed this nation. I do believe that they have to come to an end. I really do. And I do believe that you can build an economy based on small business. When you look back in time and the standard of living that happened at the beginning of our country as we're building, I mean, we can look back at pictures and such. And historically, the standard of living in a lot of ways was a lot higher than it is now. Because there's a whole large division between the globalists and the people who are just here to be their little slave class. Huge division there. So what if we were to kneecap these corporations and hold them accountable, which they should be held accountable for, and breaking the law amongst other things? I mean, they're the ones that are breaking the law and running the politicians in the whole ten yards. I mean, the whole thing is organized crime. So if we think differently, let's say we think differently. I mean, within the current system of organized crime, we've got a real problem. But if we went and we did fundamental changes, and got away from these large city centers. They're nothing but a fifteen-minute city that has been created to get people off the land and keep us off the land. I mean, fifty-one percent of the land in the West is owned by the federal government. They're not supposed to own any land. And the same thing with Michigan, four point six million acres controlled by the DNR. They're not supposed to own that land. They've got an active program to buy up land and give it basically to their corporations because they don't do anything to set up the CCP public-private partnerships here in the United States. When this sort of thing ends, I think small communities can actually do very, very well with small business, especially when you look at the ability to do small cottage industries to go back to more of an agrarian, not these big corporate farms where they're poisoning our food. I mean, the quality of life, the more we go into collectivism, the more we focus and move things into these corporate control for profits, the lower our standard of living actually becomes to buy just one more Walmart trinket to put in our house somewhere instead of having actual quality by people that are building things on the ground. And some of the industries probably need to be redone, but all they're doing is destroying them. I mean, look at what Mary Barra has done to Ford. It's all going down. We're giving them all kinds of our tax dollars to go across the border. We're literally funding our demise. through the corporations and the politicians who are on their leash. Yeah, totally. But when we're talking about small businesses, keep in mind that that design of an economy was the creation of the very people who were destroying our economy. Right. It was supposed to be a mitigation to employ small groups of people for retraining, retraining. But what do you retrain for when there are no jobs? When I first started researching things and I started looking at the economy, there were eight thousand people or so that were applying for four hundred jobs at a Walmart in the Bay Area. In Phoenix, there were like four thousand people applying for four hundred jobs at a Walmart. Walmart became kind of a job place, you know, an interim job place. They were paying their people minimum wage with no benefits, no benefits whatsoever. But when you have mass numbers of people like that that are suddenly unemployed, you can't build enough small businesses. You can't create enough small businesses to soak up the excess. It's just not possible. Well, when you look at the fundamental problems that we have right now, because they've thrown us into a global economy and we're literally shipping steel. Think about this. We're shipping steel across the pond to China. to be recycled. They're melting it down, sending it back, and it's still cheaper than what you could produce in the United States. Because I've been studying quite a bit of the manufacturing that is using automation in the United States and that sort of thing. The model is there to be able to compete now. We don't need these big factories anymore. If we got rid of the regulation, it would be amazing the technological boom that would happen in this country. You can't even buy bolts and screws being made in the United States to a certain degree. You can get the same things over in China for like nine cents. But when you try to get it in the United States, it'll be like thirty nine cents because we're giving the advantage to overseas buyers. um, production if, if we stop funding it. And I think the Trump tariffs are helping to do that leveling this playing field because they've got slave labor in China. They've got slave labor. They've got no regulations. They're pumping. They're pumping crap in the atmosphere. If people think it's that all the pollution is staying in China, I got a lot of news for you. Something tells me that it's coming right over to the United States as well as getting in the oceans and it's polluting. If you have a polluter, it's polluting the entire planet. You're not, you're not safe anywhere. That's a, that's another myth that they have going on constantly. They're there. I want to show you a show right now that, that, um, There's a couple of things that I want to show everybody, but there's this guy that does these videos and it's called Smarter Every Day. And he does videos on YouTube that is, his name is Destin and I love Destin. I would love to speak to Destin. And he does manufacturing and trying to figure out how to do things differently and outlines the problems. with manufacturing in the United States. I love this guy. He's amazing. And he was trying to build a scrubber for grills to see if he could make an American product. I love this guy. Dustin, if you're watching this, I absolutely love this guy. To try to make it completely made from America, what he found out is he couldn't because the parts and everything. So the point here is that there needs to be a concerted effort to bring industry back to the United States. And it's going to have to be done by somebody who can understand manufacturing and the components. It's not just manufacturing a, a product. It's, It's the components that need to be brought back to the United States. Like we used to have all the mills in the United States to produce fabric and such. Well, you know what that's called? That's called supply chain warfare. Right. And that's what the United States did to Germany in World War II. And what you do is you study a particular product that they make and you figure out what is the one key component in that, that the whole damn thing doesn't work if you don't have that component. And that's the kind of warfare that we waged against Germany in World War II. And so what they did to our economy, I believe was supply chain warfare. Which is concerning because you see people like the Republican Party running with DeVos money. They're picking our politicians, and they're the direct line to freaking China. It's like if you look at all the people that are going to China and start trying to build stuff in the United States, it's amazing. And then they're going to run John James, and John James is a supply line guy. I had somebody that's in the military that said he was known as a supply line guy. guy in the military. I'm like, okay, fantastic. Let's just keep going with this idiocy that just doesn't seem to stop. Yeah. Well, waging supply chain warfare, that's easy. Protecting yourself against supply chain warfare, that's the hard part. And you have to have, of course, the cooperation between of all of the suppliers, but they're making so much money over in China that we're all kind of screwed, you know? Well, yeah. And we're in, in our country is enabling them and they're, they're totally enabling them. And so if we had a, if we had a government that actually protected our country, you know, America first or whatever, I mean, I'm the, I'm the, chair chair of the of the constitution party in the state of michigan we need an overhaul of what's of who's sitting in office because they don't give a rat's rear end about any of us I want to show you I'll show you just I'm going to play a little bit of this right now and so I have an announcement and I'm going to go over here because it's on his on his uh uh website is kind of uh But here's the deal. For years, I've been wanting to strengthen American manufacturing. My parents were auto workers growing up. That's how they sent me to college, was working third shift at an auto parts manufacturing plant. And I just saw American Jobs leaving America Over time, they packed up my parents' plants, sent it to Mexico, and it just broke my heart because I remember the smell of cutting fluid. It smelled like work to me. My parents would come home, and their clothes would smell like that. It was just a big deal. So I have wanted to use my engineering skills to create manufacturing jobs for a really, really long time. And we're finally doing that. I would like to announce to you a product we're calling the Smarter Scrubber. If you grill outside, Okay, so I'm going to post this in my Telegram channel and also on X because he went through the difficulties of manufacturing in the United States. The fact that he couldn't get, he used chain mail for a scrubber. I like the way he designed this. I watch these type of videos all the time because I'm obsessed with operations, how things are produced and that sort of thing. coming at it from a business person's perspective, this is a problem we're going to have to tackle. And I do think that we could get together, if we had somebody that could pull people together into business, how do I say this, business pods, I'm going to call them business pods at this point, or farming pods or something like this, we could accomplish this and it would break these big corporations. But with that said, I bought one of his scrubbers. So they were getting ready to put this out on the market. And it's expensive. But when you look at the economics of it, the normal brush, you break off bristles every time you use it. And if you get a bristle stuck in your intestines or your digestive tract, which is a warning on these brushes, it's amazing. You could buy one scrubber from him. And never have to buy another one probably the rest of your life. It's more expensive. However, in the long run, it is not. And so it's building things that last so you don't have a disposable economy. If you do that, you solve the problem of a pollution problem. B, resources and squandering resources and such. A disposable economy never works well. Never, ever. There's an end to it. It is not sustainable forever. It's like communism. It will fail. And it's going to fail hard when it does. Well, you know what? That was by design. That was part of the significance of Buckminster Fuller and his completely recyclable university. During the Clinton administration, they began that policy of making corporations recycle their own products. It meant that they could no longer designed for quality they designed for disposability so that they could get the products back sooner to be able to recycle them and and it's just a um it gets insane you know when you start thinking of the world like that I've got tools that my dad had and and you know they they are you know I don't know how many decades old, but those tools will probably outlast me, outlast my son, and maybe my grandson will get them. But now you go buy a shovel and, you know, maybe within a month it's come apart. It's just, you know, crap. Yeah, they don't do any like hardening of anything. To last, to your point, and that's a big problem. If we had things that we paid a little bit more for and we were actually responsible for managing them without a computer or electronics being attached to it, We would be so far ahead. I mean, think about it. If we didn't have to work to pay for energy, if we didn't have to work to pay for these things that they have literally captured in a very globalist corporate way, we would have so much free time on our hands. It would be amazing. And if we didn't throw things away all the time so that we had to keep replacing them, they've made us dependent on this. Well, they used our economy to get buy-in from other corporations for the global economic system. I hope the whole thing crashes. I really do. I've been praying for it for years. It's like, let the whole thing just free fall down. God Almighty will bring it down himself. And then we'll figure it out. The only ones that it would hurt if there was a global crash, it's going to be the corporations. It's not going to hurt us at all. Oh, no, no. You're wrong about that. It won't hurt them a bit. It will hurt us. I mean, you're living out on a farm, but think about the people in New York City, San Francisco that live in apartments. What the hell are they going to do? What are they going to do? And that's where the majority of the population is, is in the big cities, obviously. So their point of view, their look at the world is completely different than our look at the world. They are absolutely dependent upon suppliers to bring in their food to do everything. Zero survival skills. Zero. Yeah, absolutely. Well, I take that back. No, they know how to survive the wild streets of New York. And people out here in the West that live in rural areas, They don't. I remember a family from, I think it was Salt Lake. There were six of them. They were down in the subway. They thought they were safe because they were in a group, you know, family of like six and they're adults. But they got attacked by a gang down in the subway and they got hurt. You know, they got, that family got robbed and hurt. I'm not sure anybody survives well in the big city, quite honestly, whether you're from the country or the city, because there's so much crime going on there. Well, you got to, you know, there wasn't when I lived there. I lived there between nineteen eighty nine and about nineteen ninety four. That's what Rudy David Dinkins was mayor when I first got there. But then Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor. And the city became, it became a safe city. Now there are neighborhoods you didn't go to ever, day or night, but downtown Manhattan and that area, it was safe. So, you know, you just had to know the terrain and where you could go, where you couldn't go. And when, of course, you know, being out at night was always a risk. Never take the subway at night. Yeah. Well, it's just interesting. I mean, I live out in the country, but I also own a whole bunch of property within the city. And I actually invested in areas that were very, very, how should I say, compromised. I had a crack house move in right next to me at one of my properties at one point in time. There were people fighting out in the street and I literally walked right out there. My problem is my brain clicks off. I told them what was going to happen and It's kind of, yes, it's crazy. Some of us are crazy on both sides. I mean, I did, I did. There was a whole bunch of people fighting in the streets and one of them peeled off of the group that was there and took off up on the porch of this house. And I had, there were four college gals living in that house and they start screaming, you can't come in here. There's our landlord. So the guy turned on me. And, uh, I was just, I went zero to pissed in less than half a second, planted it, just, you know, um, folded my arms at the time I was power lifting like crazy. And I probably, I probably wouldn't have had a hard time at least making some damage. If it were a video game, there would have been damage points there. Right. So just planted it. He just looked at me after, after a few, a little while, he just kind of went like this and he, Like kind of saluted me and barreled off the side of the porch with a guy running after him with a baseball bat. And yeah, I was so pissed. I got up there and in the house and called the cops and told them they're a bunch of fat bastards just giving out parking tickets instead of solving the problems. and filed a no trespassing on the property. And I was done there. There was a, there was a, yeah, it was, I, it was a, it's a funny thing. I was working at one of the places at one time and This guy, he had to be about seven feet tall. He was about seven feet tall. And he was walking past and said, hey, can you help me get some of this stuff picked up here? You've definitely got the wingspan and the reach to move this. Oh, yeah, no problem. And that devolved into a bunch of sixteen-year-olds who had way too much time on their hands. and two errant skunks that ran past, and bricks were flying past my head trying to get in control of this situation. And the guy came up to me and said something, and I literally just ripped into him. I'm like, I'm telling you, the brain just does absolutely click off, and sometimes that's just the way it is. I'm like, I was dealing with you. I wasn't dealing with these guys. You get rid of them and we'll talk. And, and only I was much, much more hostile and way more street than I was, than I am on this show. Yeah. Well, I, I'm an avoidance person, you know, I avoid things like that. My husband and son and I were walking down the street. We were going, I don't know, somewhere in Midtown. And this panhandler came up to us and he was trying to get some money. And my son just, you know, he said, get out of here, get away from here. And I, you know, I said, Greg, what if he had a gun? He said, if he had a gun, he would have hawked it. You know, never occurred to me, you know, I was going to give the guy money to go away. But so, yeah, I avoid. Oh, I just kind of run into it, but I've done this for years. It's kind of my personality. So let's guess kind of, I don't know. I just, I just don't run from a fight has a way of working out or it doesn't, but one way or the other, I'm, I'm a person who's a little more confrontational. In fact, somebody said that to me one, one time years ago, they said, wow, I've got it finally. It was actually, it was my husband. He said, I got it figured out about you. I said, I understand something. I'm like, okay, fill me in here, honey. He's like, he's like, the rest of us are scared of conflict and you run right into it. And I'm like, well, yeah, it never dawned on me that people did that. So, I mean, I was kind of like sitting here going, well, of course I do. I'm like, that's the only way to fix it. If you run away from it, it just keeps going on and on and on. You've got to run right towards the fire if you want to solve anything. Did you have brothers at all growing up? Yeah, I have one and he is not like me at all. Okay. Not to me. Yeah. I was the only girl. And, um, My brother, well, my cousin came to live with us. He was the same age as my brother, almost four years older than I was. And I was the target of teasing and tormenting. They were just horrid to me. And so I would just bide my time. And when I had enough of it, I would wait till my mother was close by. And then I would hit my brother and then run to my mother. Because she would protect me and tell him to knock it off. But growing up with boys like that, a woman has to learn her limitations. And fighting with guys, it's not to be done. You know, I could still bust my brother because I could think my way through it, you know, or I didn't care. We were out. Well, mine, mine was always delayed reaction. You know, my, uh, I couldn't confront them directly at the moment, but I sure as hell could lie in wait. Oh, that's so funny. Here's a funny story. We'll tell stories today. Stories are always fun. So we were putting manure on the garden, of course. So we were dad's slave labor on everything. And so we were putting horse manure on the garden by wheelbarrows. And we had a big garden. So it was one of those things that was going to take us all day. to get the manure on the garden. So when dad got home from work, he could rototilla down and such. So we're working on this. And my brother was a he is he still is that guy, right? So he started chucking horse poop at me as I'm trying to fill the fill the the thing because he was great at getting out of work. That was his thing is to get out of work and then finally, you know, that that's what that was his MO. Get out of work as quick as possible. So I'm like working because I'm like, it's got to get done. So and I knew it needed to get done. So I just started I just started working and doing. So he's sitting up there and he just keeps lobbing as I'm working. He keeps lobbing, you know, horse manure at me as I'm lobbing and I'm getting I'm getting annoyed. But I knew that there was no way out of this. And so I just kept working. and let him be a jerk, right, so finally, I got sick of it, and I went, boom, and I just blasted him with, I just blasted him with a handful, he goes running in the house to mom, mom, Donna's throwing horse manure on me, she comes out, and she's like, well, you're gonna finish the job, and brings his little sorry behind in the house, he turns around behind mom's back, and he's like, I'm like, that's okay. I'm like, I'm sick. I'm sick of you right now. Anyhow, you little bastard. So he went, he went in the house and I finished the garden in peace and it was just fine with me. I was like, I was like, whatever, you know, life is what it is. Sometimes it sucks, but you still got to keep going regardless of the shit that gets shoveled. There's the lesson right there. No matter what comes at you, when you got a job to do, Don't worry about it. The world is going to throw shit at you. It just is expected. So you either decide you're going to just get the job done regardless what comes your way. Or give up and stay in Loserville. Because if there's a goal or something that needs to be done, you've got to stay on task regardless of what somebody else did. I didn't feel sorry for myself. I was pretty pissed, if you really want to know the truth, about my brother being the... Jerk. The jerk that he is. I mean, I can come up with lots of expletives on this one and such because he will not confront anything. He likes to get out of work. Honestly, that was his M.O.L.E. And so but it was like, fine, whatever. I can outwork you all day long, you know, and and I will continue to do that the rest of my life. But I'm not going to sit there and have mama's boy go crying to mommy and then expect me to to do follow suit. I won't do it. You know, that's kind of how how I proceeded with my research. I don't know. I have ancestors from Germany, Germany and Scotland. And so I just inherited a stubbornness, I guess. And when I started this research, once I got on the track, I'm like one of those hound dogs. I don't give up. I'll run till I die. Yeah, I get that. I am, too. It's like when I see a mission, it's like, OK, I'm not done until this thing is solved or I find a better way to do things. I'm going to read something on the chat here that I think is significant. There's a confident Franklin that's on here has been posting with Happy Euclid and says, He says I'm in between those extremes, and he's talking about the extremes of manufacturing, big corporations as opposed to small business. And like I said, I'm a small business advocate. I think it can be done. We've got to think differently about how the country works with the amount of automation, CNC. I've done some CNC programming. I've been through engineering and engineering. and some engineering and and uh computer programming as well as business business and such and I think it can be done but we got to think differently anyhow happy euclid says would be great if we had more locally focused millwrights that knew that sort of thing and confident franklin says millwright is a whole different line of work it's almost extinct more so than machinists some of the problems of sourcing sources can be solved with hybrid fabrication of basic tools and and three printing. I made custom lollipop coolant nozzles that might at night with printing five eighths inch balls with a hole to fit with I can't read it. This is really small print here, but I'm sure flared steel tubing works a lot better than what my boss provides. You know, and my dad used to do that too. He used to make his, he would make his own tools. He did welding and he was a mechanic and such. He'd just make his own tools. So I do think that this is, it's possible to be done. I mean, don't you just love it when there's an impossible task out there and somebody says, you can't do that. And the stubbornness kicks in and goes, oh yes, I can. Yeah, that I do love. I love that. Yeah. So that's where I go to Vicki. Oh, yes, we can. Watch us. We just have to think our way through it. We just have to break the model that we've been stuffed in by these globalists. You know, I'm for lack of better pieces of shit because I had them chucked at me since we're talking about it right now. That's really what we need to do. We got to think differently. And there's a lot of smart people out there who haven't been totally sucked in to these moronic universities. And I spent a lot of time there. Not that I didn't spend time there. But we've got to think old school. We've got to rebuild this nation from what these globalist POSs have done before. to the entirety of the world. It's not just the United States. I think we can do it. And I really do like the hybrid. It's not going to happen overnight. But if we can start finding ways to shift this in, I mean, there's machines where you can throw in cotton at one end and a finished garment will come out at the other end. If you had five or six people making small lines like that, boutique lines, I think it's We really can do it. I do believe that. But it's going to take it's going to take somebody that like President Trump cutting the IRS, man, that forty five thousand jobs. That's like brilliance. You know, let's start getting rid of all of these, you know, or most of these oversight agencies and have an actual common law court put in place with grand juries that can say, make it more local instead of the collectivism. That's what's good. That's what's going to make it work. The reason that the solution that he's going to implement is not better than the existing IRS. And I know that's hard to believe, but they're turning over the taxing system to the big corporations and moving to a national sales tax. I hope not. I hope that this ends and goes more. It needs to go back to the communities, everything, governance, as well as the community care, everything. And I think if people can get together as Americans, not being a... you know, a Democrat, Republican, this and that. I mean, pick your label. They're all the same. They're all to keep us fighting, right? If we can stop this and say, you know what, we got a problem here. It is them against we the people. And if we don't get this thing figured out, we're going to get exactly that. I don't care who is in office at that point in time. We have to hold them accountable. We had to have everyday, regular, normal, not political people running for office and to do it with honesty and integrity. I don't care who anybody is. If they're honest, if they have the characteristic of being honest and have integrity, they're probably more qualified than one hundred percent of the people that are in there right now. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. The people that are in there now, I consider the entire Congress just nothing more than political whores. They're criminals. All of them are. And so are the judges at this point in time. And so are all of these agencies that are out there. Our whole system of government was corrupted in the, I'm going to say the reinvented government and they had government projects where they came up with lists of ideas of how to automate and consolidate bring efficiency to government well they made us so efficiency that we're a communist country Agreed. And there is corruption between government and corporations, collusion. I'm going to bring Daniel in a minute while we're talking. Morning, Daniel. How are you doing? Good morning. How are you? Good. I thought that you would enjoy this conversation that's going on here. And it would give us a nice segue into your segment here, too. But keep going, please, Vicki. Oh, well, if you study that period, you know, from nineteen ninety three to nineteen ninety nine, you will see you'll see where the corruption occurred in the consolidation of agencies of government into units of efficiency for globalization. They made us a communist country. Actually, it's fascist because it's the corporations that dictate the And we are just the peasants at ground level. You think you're a citizen? No, forget about it. You're a peasant. Well, let's look at that, too, because if you look at the communist part of it, you've got the George Soros side, which is totally communist, and then you've got the bankers. and the Rothschild side. And there you go with your fascist part of it. So we're kind of like buried under both of them and trying to work our way back out of it. But it's going to take everybody to honestly get in the game. Right now, I'm trying to put lists together on every single seat that's open in twenty five and twenty six for the state of Michigan. I've got a pretty good list right now. And I'm going to be trying to seat people that are everyday Americans, not politicians, that are willing to sacrifice and serve this nation in stepping in under the Constitution Party of Michigan, which is a U.S. taxpayers party. Right now, I'm still trying to get the name changed and sue Jonathan Brader and Secretary of State for getting this done. And it's actually kind of going quite well, you know, to change our name to match the National Party. U.S. Taxpayers Party in Michigan is the Constitution Party. It is the Constitution Party in Michigan. So I'm pulling together lists and I'm just going to tell everybody out there, you want to save this nation? You want to save this state? Well, guess what? Tag. You're it. You're going to have to step forward because even if, even if everybody believes that Donald Trump is going to save and change everything, he's definitely going in the right direction, but it's federal. And he, and it's going, what's he going to do to seat people, good people in the seats on down to the municipalities and the local level. It's going to take every single one of us that says, you know what? I'm going to devote part of my time to, to, getting in there and pulling this thing back to their constitutional republic. And that's where I think that we need to put a stake in the ground here. What say you, Daniel? I agree with everything you said, but I come at it from a different perspective. Ron Paul said, the other day, not Ron Paul, his son, Rand, said something quite brilliant the other day, and he was telling the Davy Crockett story. Have you ever heard the Davy Crockett story? Please tell it. I think it's the eighteen hundreds when he served two terms in the House. There was a bill put before the federal Congress over a widow, the wife of a soldier, and they were looking to compensate her. It leads to them passing a bill and on his way home, he comes upon one of his constituents and asks for his vote. Davy Crockett asked for his vote and his constituent says, I'm not going to vote for you. And he explains the fact that you're violating the very basic tenets of the Constitution. Welfare is not an enumerated power. And if you can do, even though it may sound good, right, that that may be the case. Georgetown had a horrendous fire early on before it was Washington, D.C., but when it was still, remember, Washington, D.C. sat originally on two jurisdictions, and it becomes Washington, D.C. in the Organic Act of And so you have the state of Maryland, the state of Virginia, the county on both sides of the Potomac, and the towns. So Georgetown has this horrendous fire. And again, Congress votes to give an act of charity. And the gentleman makes the point, or I should say Davy Crockett makes the point during this entire explanation. He says, look, The way to solve the problem is everyone in the House or the Senate can give freely of their own income. If they want to act and give out their own money to support these causes because the Constitution... Remember, what does the Supremacy Clause say? This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made pursuant thereof. Pursuant to what? The Constitution. The founding fathers were very clear when the debate over the Bill of Rights came to be. They said, look, the Federalists argued that whatever is written down is the end of our authority. We can't exercise any more authority. We know that today is the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, right? The Ninth Amendment basically says, just because we didn't think about it, doesn't mean you get to do anything we forgot to mention here. And by the way, the Tenth Amendment reaffirms it, that those powers not specifically delegated to the federal Congress or reserved to the states are reserved to the people. So we are a constitutional republic. And the big difference is that in a republic that the government may only exercise those powers the people have given them. Not anymore. Today, you hear it all the time. Democracy, democracy. The left keeps screaming that Trump is going to destroy the democracy. I say, good, because we are not a democracy. See, in a democracy, and the best examples for your listeners is England and Canada, right? They're both subjects of the crown, the English crown. So, the parliaments in both locations, the people have willingly surrendered their authority for them to act on their behalf. They are a real democracy where fifty one percent mob rule allows them to do whatever. But that's not the case here in America. And this basic principle, you see, they've stripped civics out of our schools. And these baby steps have happened throughout history. So it didn't happen. I politely disagree with the Clinton era. It's been going on since the beginning. Because remember, it was a great experiment to invert the paradigm of the sovereign king making the laws of the land under common law to the people having that authority. And they wrote the state constitutions first, followed by the U.S. Constitution four years later. And it's this fundamental thing. So you ask yourself, if you let the government do something it's not permitted to do, and it does it anyway, you establish precedent and you continue down this dangerous road of exercising powers not delegated. And now it's killing us. You're right in the perspective of a communist entity because they're out of control. We virtually, if we do not turn this boat around, and get America and citizens of every state, because see, we're no longer citizens, we're customers. It's RICO for revenue, right? And that's all it is. One of my old friends who's no longer with us, I used to say that all the time. He said, Dan, we're fighting an ideology. You're fighting a belief system. And so the belief system is based on how you were raised while stripping out state civics here in my home state, The citizens don't know what the state constitution says. The lawyers don't know what it says because they don't teach it in law school. And the judges don't know what it says. They all rely on precedent. They all rely on precedent unless there's overwhelming reason. And no one in the legal society who is financially vested in however much money it costs them to go to law school says, See, they're smart in the respect that they know they have to toll the establishment line if they want to pay back their student loans and they want to earn a living as an attorney. This is how the system works. And so bad precedent on bad precedent on bad precedent for more than two. Look at, look at John Adams and the alien and sedition act, right? A reporter shortly after the, he was one of the founding fathers and someone called him fat and he didn't like it. And so he, you know, they, they passed this, they passed this bill and, you know, suppressing free speech shortly after the bill of rights was adopted. So it did, it started right away. And again, Another famous quote, I'll paraphrase from one of the founding fathers, is that it's a republic. Remember when they left the Constitutional Convention and someone asked Mr. Franklin, what have you given us, Mr. Franklin? A republic, if you can keep it. Self-governance requires an educated citizenry. And that's where I've come out from a completely different angle. I didn't go to law school. I don't have all of those ties that bind me. So my study of fundamental principles and not needing to tow the establishment line has left me to challenge all of these things. And it left these people reeling. If you see my oral arguments before the state Supreme Court, I'm educating the court and the lawyers. They don't know. They don't know because they haven't been taught. One of the lawyers that is in my first case over a right to redress of grievances, they argued your right to petition the government for redress of grievances has fallen out of favor. Imagine that. And in the end, he was so embarrassed to make those arguments to defend the legislature that he told people privately that when people, the lawyers have to deal with me, I have them at a huge disadvantage. Because I studied the state constitution extensively for more than ten years, I know our foundation better than they do. But again, they're professional lawyers. They know that in order to win cases to represent their clients, no matter who their clients are, including the state, You know, and we'll get into my case on the election law today. But these, I think the underlying issues, and that's why my mission personally is education, education, education. And I want to do that through establishing a committee of safety in every state in the union as a spearhead to start this path down the road, because you're right when you say it needs to go back to the local level. The local level, the people at the local level need to stand up because it's the people at the local level who elect representatives. And they're no more well-informed than the people they elect. And everyone involved doesn't know the source of their authority or their limits of their power. And I'll make this point and let you comment. And that is, I find it fascinating that if you look at the statutory authority for our attorney general, for the secretary of state, for the governor, and so on and so forth, you will find that it says source of authority. And they cite the article in the constitution of the state where that authority comes from. And then the legislature, back to the supremacy clause, right? The legislature writes statutes pursuant to the authority of the constitution. We could fix a great portion of our government in all fifty states if we would enact that simple policy. Another one would be that we need to get back to informed consent. What is the legal definition of informed consent? Here in New Hampshire, they give you an amendment proposed by the legislature while you're walking into the booth to vote. You spend the majority of the time casting your ballot and you have sixty seconds or so because most people don't read it. They read the question and write yes or no. I would argue that's not informed consent, but this is how they've habitually changed our state governments by changing little bits at a time, little bits of the time that seem not we most people don't understand the harm caused by these little minute changes that are not rooted in informed consent. Well, I really agree with what you're saying there. That's like all of these proposals, as you were saying, oh, Vicki left us here. It's just really, it's really too bad that people don't take the time to actually research and do what you're doing. So what are we going to talk about today? Vicki left us. Bye, Vicki. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I didn't get to say bye, but that's okay. That's okay. She does that once in a while. When she's done, she's done. That's okay. We all have busy lives. Yes. She's very busy. So the election law. I just got notice from my state Supreme Court I'm going back for a third time. So I want to touch on my election law case, my previous two appearances on your podcast. I kind of laid up, you know, these foundational principles for your audience. And so today I want to address the basis of my litigation. I uncovered how our election laws were changed. And so what I argued was first and foremost, I was denied the right to vote and I laid the groundwork for the right to vote by putting them on notice. A very wise woman said to me a few years back, she said, Dan, I sat as a juror on a very important case when the Seabrook power plant on our coast was being contemplated to be built. all the greenies were opposing it and there was all this stuff. And so a man was, was prosecuted for trespassing because he was ordered to leave, right? He was ordered by law enforcement to leave and he was doing what people do when they protest, they go a little too far and some of them get arrested. So he was facing a trial and, the point was made that in order to make a trespass claim, whether it's physical trespass or a trespass upon your rights, because remember, your rights are your property and you have a property in your rights. As James Madison famously said. And so knowing this, I used the remonstrance process, the right under our state constitution, we have the right to petition the government for anything we wish for them to do that they are entitled to do on our behalf. And then if you're going to object to what they're doing, you would remonstrate. It's a strong rebuke and opposition of a past legislation that is repugnant or contrary to the Constitution of the state. And so I use that technique. The state legislature hadn't seen it in one hundred and fifty years. So I caught them, you know, blindsided them because, again, they don't know their history. They don't know the Constitution. And so I started with my state legislature. So I drafted these items of violations of state election law. And I started by serving the House, the Senate, walked down the hall to the governor's office, the secretary of state's office, and then finally the attorney general's office. After serving all of them, I then took that same notice because we are a Dillon rule state. We talked about that before. So here we can only, our local communities can only exercise those powers delegated by the state government, by the state legislature. So I started there at the state level because they passed the statutes, but the constitution says, gives the local municipalities and the local towns and unincorporated places, the moderator, the selectman, the clerk are the three constitutional officers to conduct the election process. So I serve them. I said, hey, look, you're violating my rights by using voting machines because you're using voting machines to cheat. I didn't argue that the voting machines were being manipulated. I simply argued that the voting machines were being used to hide and conceal the counting of unverified, uncertified absentee ballots. And so that's how I put them on notice. I showed up on election day and lo and behold, they're still using machines and they're going to compel me to use a machine and be part. So they violated federal law by coercing me into using an unapproved device because it Again, we are a republic. You can't. The Constitution was written in seventeen eighty four and the election laws were written for hand counting paper ballots. It did not provide for electronic devices. Massachusetts, for example, knowing that this was a problem, put it as a constitutional question to the voters. Do you agree that we want to use voting machines? And they did. They said yes. And they made it a constitutional provision. New Hampshire did not. And so I pointed that out to them and I said, look, didn't you get my notice? I pulled the moderator aside after getting my ballot. I says, I can't do this. I can't be a co-conspirator in a criminal act. And so I'm going to be helping you cheat all the towns. See, we have one hundred and three towns that count by hand. We have one hundred and thirty five that use machines. That's our rough estimate. that I have today. And so I can't go down that road and you can't force me to be part of your criminal conduct. So I pulled a moderator aside. He was very nice, very respectful, and he understood my concern. And so I handed my ballot back and I refused to cast my ballot. Not because I wanted to refuse to cast my ballot, but I was objecting. This was the way I was going to object. And his response was, yeah, we got your notice, but our legal counsel told us to ignore you. And the attorney general's office got wind of this. And so they told the other communities, because a lot of other patriots took my paperwork and went to their towns and did the same thing. And the attorney general sent out a memo. They said, we're aware of these notices until you're instructed by legal counsel or a court. Keep doing, keep breaking the law until we tell you not to. So this is crazy. Any barred attorney, it's a private membership organization. It's not a license to practice law. And they're literally running our municipalities, our governments. And when you see it here in Byron Center, when they're up there on their little stage, because it's pretended, most of it, they will always consult with that attorney. That's right. And I had one meeting where they basically they didn't basically flat out said we take our orders from the state. And I said, that's unconstitutional. You can't do that. They looked at me cross-eyed, didn't they? They looked at me cross-eyed. And then the attorney sat there real smug because they're his little puppets sitting there. He's literally telling them step by step. None of them know enough about the constitution or the law or any of this. And one of them had the audacity to say, Hey, we're just normal citizens. We don't know any of this. I'm like, You're in an office that you know nothing about. Having the political powerhouses around you tell you what to do, and you're not listening to anyone of your constituents. You're not listening to anyone. You're only listening to the powers that be. Right then and there, they're not only disqualified, but they're committing treason because they're violating their oath of office. Absolutely. And here's the insidious part. We're paying for this. Not only are we paying their salaries, right, through taxation, because I'm sure it's the same in your state that we have here in New Hampshire an organization called the Municipal Association. And every community, because it's a corporation, has to be bonded, has to be insured. If a public official runs off the rails and commits a crime, they have to be insured. in order to cover litigation costs. So under the pretense of keeping your premiums low, the insurance carriers have created an agreement with the municipal association to staff a lawyer in every community to guide them to keep them out of trouble. You gotta be kidding me. This is all new to me. So this goes to the insurance? Yes, yes, because in order to keep your premiums low, right, you've got to have a lawyer governing citizens who are uneducated. Remember, we're not teaching state civics, so your local officials are relying on lawyers and not their own civics education. See, if they knew what the Constitution said, then they wouldn't need legal counsel, and we wouldn't have out-of-control premiums. But again, this is by design. This is not an accident. This is by design. So in order to keep your insurance and your property taxes down, because that's how they get you, right? In order to protect the local municipalities, so you're paying for this. And so meanwhile, no one knows the truth. Well, what's really crazy, that is absolutely really crazy. But what's really crazy is how many developers get a pass to build infrastructure and they're having the citizens pay for it. If you're having water or sewer put in, they literally assess a property that doesn't have, there's no value to any of us for hooking up to city water or sewer. Because if you've got a good well in a septic system, why do you have to pay for a normal frontage? forty to eighty thousand dollars to pay for their infrastructure. It's so that they can build out with the developers whom I'm pretty sure they all know and are getting kickbacks from or contracts or something like that. And our taxes keep raising. They keep raising our taxes. So not only are we getting dinged in one side, we're getting dinged to the other side. It's insanity. I had no idea that the insurance companies were funding the attorneys. Well, the, no, no, they're not funding the attorneys. Here's how they have plausible. Okay. How did they do this? So you have to have an insurance policy. You have to be bonded. If you look at my state constitution in the beginning, you had to be a property owner and you had to have X amount of assets because if you violated your oath of office, you could have, you'd have to have What's the first thing a lawyer does when he evaluates your case? Is there recoverable assets? Is there recoverable money, right? Does this person, in other words, I'm not going to waste my time suing somebody who has nothing. Because in the end, I'm going to waste my time. And they may do it for someone who's affluent enough and can afford to go down that road, but the average person does not. So that's why in the beginning, that's why you had to have X amount of real estate or assets in order to protect that. So as it grew, as this government's grew, they said, okay, now we're going to have an insurance policy. So the insurance policy is X amount of dollars. And the way to keep, so the negotiation basically goes like this, or as this came to be, if you want to keep your premiums low, then we recommend that you hire, that the municipal association came to be and said, hey, we'll go ahead and represent the towns at a discounted rate. and we'll represent every community in the state to keep your premiums down. So the town buys the premium for the insurance company, but part of the keeping that premium costs down is to have a staff lawyer, which they were only too happy to provide. And so there's a separation there. They're, they're technically, but it's incestuous. It's conflict of interest. Sure is that that is, it's incredible. Yeah. One more reason to abolish the bar. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It's pretended legal theft. Wait till you hear what they're doing on election law, because this magnifies itself with the state's attorney general in election law. Because instead of fixing the problems in my litigation, they are defending bad behavior. But I'll get back to my case. So I bring this case forward And I knew that all of the cases in the United States, see, as far as I know, I'm the only election law case in the United States still standing challenging the twenty twenty four election. The majority of lawyers who brought cases upon those who had the money to challenge and could afford to hire these firms, they all were dismissed for what? Lack of standing. Well, and I think a lot of them that were working on cases too were threatened to have their license taken away. That too, that too. There was a lot of threat and coercion. Those that were honorable men, yes. Yes, it's organized crime. When you start threatening people for and threatening their livelihood, which they are doing, we got a big problem. That's why they can't, they don't know what to do with me because I don't have a bar license to take. I don't have a bar card. So what are you going to do to me now? Right? Yeah. So anyway, so that's how I began the process because I started teaching this. We had, I'm not going to use the name, but you know who I'm going to refer to. There was a person who's still teaching notices and affidavits throughout the United States. And the problem is that the affidavit component is the notice and affidavit as if There was some misleading, in my opinion, going on about what the affidavit was for. An affidavit, as you probably well know, is a sworn statement that something is true. The only way you can admit something into a court of law where the person does not testify is that it has to be sworn before a notary or a JP. Otherwise, excuse me, it's not admissible. That's what happened with my cases because I've got two pro se cases that are out there right now. The judge literally sent this back to me and said, add this paragraph and sign it in front of a notary. And I did that. That was what did it. But the judge coached me on that. And so I'm really happy to hear that. And so this is the process that, like I said, I used the remonstrance process. And so then I filed suit. Now, I had also come to acknowledge along the way that the voting machines were modified. They're old, but there were concerns that they were being accessed through Wi-Fi because they all had motherboards that had a modem attached to them. So without proper service, they had them all butchered. They cut them all out. But they didn't send them back to the factory and have the factory modify the machines and then send them back for a United Laboratories safety certification. See, in order to protect the election workers and people with health problems, pacemakers, so on and so forth, defibrillators and so on, that these modified machines are no longer safe. And so I brought that as part of my case. So, but again, I wasn't going to focus on that they were being, because see, I couldn't prove how they were manipulating the ballot count. Now, I know how they're doing it here because what they're doing here is that after the primary or during the primary, they know who the candidates are for the primary in those communities who cast a ballot. And so the vendor that either rents the machine or has sold a machine programs the memory card. They show up with a program memory card, insert it or have it inserted, and then the election happens. Then the card is removed. Then for the general election, the same thing. The card is then programmed and then removed after the election process. But here's the thing. They use the dirty little lie that it's proprietary software, that this is top secret in order to prevent an audit. So you don't get to know how the machine was programmed. Or what's on there. And besides that, it's supposed to be locally, your elections are supposed to be locally run. Exactly. And so right now you've got a vendor that, who is producing rather than it being locally produced. And they're going to, it's a free for all. That's how they can control the entire election. There's no truth in it. It's a complete illusion. So I had to prove this in court and it's something I couldn't prove. I knew what they were doing, but I couldn't prove it. So I didn't waste my time. So I came at it from a different angle. I said, look, number one, the constitution of New Hampshire requires that there be an amendment because Massachusetts, see New Hampshire's constitution was copied from Massachusetts constitution. John Adams wrote the Massachusetts constitution in seventeen eighty. So New Hampshire, after the after the Revolutionary War, used that as a template and modified it. And so the same provisions were in their constitution. So knowing this, I said, look, you didn't amend your constitution and therefore you shouldn't have done it. So that was one of the big issues that I raised in my case. So the next thing I raised was the fact that there was that the, let me see that count two, then, oh, counting of these ballots so now I'll get into the ballots themselves in seven nineteen seventy seven the longest serving secretary of state in the united states was there for forty five years he was a democrat he's a nice man by the way I like him a lot we've become friends and despite What I've come to know about what he did, it's hard to not like someone who's treated you well and speaks highly of me. So matter of fact, I think this is one of the reasons why he left. He had me teach constitutional law to him and his legal team. On a particular day after addressing some of these issues in his office with many state representatives, he stopped me and he said, Dan, you know more about this than any judge I've ever met or any lawyer I've ever met in the state. And he asked me to teach constitutional law to his legal team. I did it for him twice. And either way, in nineteen seventy seven, he he took office in seventy four. I think it was seventy four. And he he petitioned the legislature or requested that they give him the authority. to use the statutes that control the election process to write an election procedure manual to make it for the lay person, right? Wink, wink. Now he's going to inflect his own opinion about the definition of a statute that becomes a real, real big problem in the twenty twenty election. And you'll understand when I get there. Two years later, He convinces the legislature to recodify all of our election laws. So our election laws were last codified in the nineteen fifties. And so I've read every election law that the state legislature has ever written from seventeen eighty four to current. So, again, I know where the changes happened and why. And so it really gets wonky in this period in our history in the nineteen seventies is where in the nineteen sixties is where I find the beginning of election fraud and the manipulation of our government. Because the Bar Association convinced the legislature to propose an amendment to remove the control, the legislature's oversight over the courts. See, our state constitution article four part two still says that the legislature is supposed to have full oversight over the judiciary because they're not selected or elected by the people. They're nominated and elected by the governor and council. So the governor nominates them and the council approves or disapproves of these nominees. And under the original intent, that the people retained their oversight, the legislature retained their oversight. So in the first is my first big aha. And they basically said to the voters, if you pass this amendment, the Superior and Supreme Court of the state will become constitutional courts. What? Hold on a second. Ask yourself the question. If the year is nineteen sixty six, are you you told the voters that they were what not constitutional? They alluded to them to that. The reason you want to do this is to remove politics from from affecting the judiciary no you were removing the people's authority to correct and bring the court back to heel when it loses control what all of this massive growth of out of control decisions we've lost our ability to control the court and in nineteen seventy eight they went one step further and granted themselves the right to make law they proposed another amendment and by telling the voters that if you pass this addendum, that the Supreme Court will have the authority to make the rules necessary for the efficient function of the courts, which, by the way, had been law since So it was a red herring. What are you doing, right? You're lying to the voters and telling them that if they pass this, because here's what they didn't tell the voters, and it wasn't in the voter's guide. The voters didn't know this. The following sentence was not in the voter's guide. Quote, the rules subproclimated by the Supreme Court will have the full force and effect of law, giving them the power to make law. So the decisions they make become law. And so this was the dismantling of the common law, in my opinion. So these two moves were all part of a series of changes. So this is where I uncovered. So this was part of my challenge. And so in nineteen seventy nine, Bill Gardner convinced the legislature to recodify all of our election laws. So I'm told that two young lost law clerks that came from the rockefeller foundation first clue the rockefeller got a problem rewrote all of our election laws not the legislature the legislature didn't do it they did they simply rubber stamped it Because Bill, being the nice guy that he was, convinced them that, hey, this is a good thing. We have too many volunteers and we still are dealing with problems with hand counting and inaccurate counting. And a whole series of changes were done. Here's a list of them. One, we're going to create a ballot law commission. And the ballot law commission is going to be the court commission. See how changing the court and making and sidestepping this process because it's going to get to the affidavit issue in a moment. We're going to create this ballot law commission of unelected bureaucrats who are going to sit in judgment and they're going to have the ability to make their own rules. They're going to be able to enforce their own rules and they're going to be able to sit in judgment of the whole process and police the new machines that And so these new sets of statutes authorize voting machines on a temporary basis for some municipalities or not. Well, that violates the Equal Protection Clause. How is it equal today if you have one hundred and three towns that use hand counting and you have one hundred and thirty five that don't? The hundred and thirty five that don't are cheating because they're counting unverified ballots. But I'll get back to the point. The state argued their state lawyers said, I have no right to a hand count. The court upheld that. That was one of the counts in my case that was dismissed. Right. Well, if there's no right to a hand count, how did they count ballots in seventeen eighty four and for nearly two hundred years? How do the towns that count them by hand today have any authority to count by hand if there's no, in fact, the Constitution says very clearly, the moderator shall sort and count. What's that mean to you? He's got to sort and count. He's got to do it personally. Exactly. Exactly. So these are parts of my case. So the next part, they're going to, so they pass the voting machine statutes. And then the ballot law commission is going to write the rules for these new machines. Well, hold on. They can't make law. The legislature makes law. Separation of powers. You can't, an administrative body, especially under the new cases come down with the Chevron deference being dismantled in the administrative state. This falls under it. I'm litigating this right now to try to bring in federal precedent, especially on this issue that now that the Chevron deference has come to be at the federal level, it should come in at the state and we should start dismantling all of these state agencies that have been propped up by this process where the Supreme Court gave an opinion that we think it's okay that the legislature can create these bureaucracies that make rules because they should know better because they are experts in their area, including the bar, right? And so all of this goes into these changes. And then last and most importantly, there's more to it, but I'll summarize those as highlights. The last one is the death of our free and fair elections. What they did is they decided that after doing all of this, and this affidavit problem becomes a really big problem. So I pointed out to the court, that the definition of absentee voting has now been skewed. In eighteen sixty three during the Civil War, the first problem arises over soldiers being deployed who can't cast a ballot. So under our state constitution, we have what they call advisory opinions. The executive or the legislature, the other two branches can ask the state Supreme Court for their opinion about proposed legislation. And so they did that very thing. And they said, can we, by statute, authorize absentee voting when the state constitution says you got to vote in person? Again, this is a great example of, no, we are a republic. See, they're making my point that I've been preaching for years now, that the legislature can't do anything that the people themselves didn't authorize them to do. And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that. The legislature has no authority to create absentee voting by statute when the Constitution requires you vote in person. fifty years goes by same problem same answer world war one nineteen twenty one the legislature sends an advisory opinion of the supreme court hoping for a new answer now it's a bigger problem new generation and the supreme court said the same thing we told you fifty years ago that you can't do this the legislature can't create a right to vote absentee so Same, forty years, I mean, twenty years goes by, same problem, same issue, but now we have a different result. World War II. Now the legislature has woken up. It's looked in its past and said, each time we asked the Supreme Court, they said, we can't do this. And so they went ahead and said, all right, we're going to amend the state constitution. And they did. Because of World War II, for the purposes of supporting the war effort. So those who are deployed to support the war effort or soldiers would be permitted to vote absentee. And what they did is that in order to make the two exemptions for voting absentee to be identical to in-person voting to meet the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal constitutions, They said, okay, here's the process that you got to follow. So let me explain that process. As you know, it's probably the same in your state. When you vote, most states hear for sure. You show up with an ID and you have a supervisor of the checklist who confirms that you are a registered voter. You produce an ID. They verify that you are in fact registered and then they hand you a ballot. And then you vote. venture off into the voting booth pull the curtain mark your ballot in a secure area and then you head over to the ballot box or the voting machine depending on what your town does and then you start chain of custody very important to voter integrity so when they created the absentee voting statutes the same legislature that proposed the amendment wrote the statutes So they put in place, okay, now absentee voting is only for registered voters for two reasons. You'll be out of your voting district on election day, or you're physically disabled, both of them requiring an affidavit. So you would apply to your local municipality for an absentee ballot, and then they would confirm that you were qualified to vote, send you out a package. Package would consist of two envelopes and a ballot. then you were to take that package and go to a moderator selectman or clerk or a notary or a jp and then the first thing you would do is hand them your ballot they would examine the ballot to ensure it hasn't been pre-marked brilliant Ensure that it isn't pre-marked. Then they would give the ballot back to the voter. And then he would, within the vicinity and visual parameter of the official acting as an election official, because that's what they were doing. They were acting as election law officials for absentee voters. And so then they would go and mark their ballot, return, fold it in half, put it in the envelope. And when they put it in the envelope, they would seal it and sign it in front of the notary who would do what? Also check your ID and verify it's you. So then they would sign it and seal it and put their notary seal on it. This was in from nineteen forty two to nineteen seventy nine. So in order to change the envelope and to change this process. What they did is they decided to violate precedent and decided to give us religious liberty. So they used the pretense of giving us a constitutional right to vote absentee because of a religious exemption. What did I just tell you? That if it took an amendment to the constitution to create the two existing exemptions, how can they now create a third exemption? absent from the voting district, physically disabled, or now a religious disability, excuse me, a religious exemption. And it got worse. Now they have the pretense to modify the envelope because now the absentee envelope that was the affidavit envelope has to be modified to add the new language, to add the third exemption. When they added the third exemption with no disclosure, they removed the notary certificate. Check that out. They removed the notary certificate and continued to call the return envelope an affidavit instrument because they turned what was a legal affidavit into an unsworn declaration. From nineteen seventy nine forward, we have people simply attesting to something being true with no eyewitness and causing this problem, this constitutional crisis. And so that's how they modify the envelope. And since that time, we have not had a free, fair and equal election process since nineteen seventy nine. Think about that. And so this is where my case is gone now over this issue because it gets really ugly in a moment. Oh, man, I bet they're sweating every time this thing comes up. They don't know what to do with you, do they? No, no. So what I pointed out to them is, see, the legislature didn't stop with religious liberty during COVID and prior to COVID. They added four more new exemptions to vote absentee by statute. One, my boss won't let me off of work. Two, my babysitter is not available because I care for my child and I'm a single mom or I'm at home and I'm caring for my child or I have an elder that I care for where I'm not compensated and I can't get free. The weather service has forecasted a bad weather event or my favorite, I'm incarcerated and can't get to the polling station. So, and two, Here's the kicker. Not only is there no notary certificate, the voter doesn't even have to declare why they are claiming their voting absentee. How can that be an affidavit? The point of an affidavit is you're swearing something is true in front of a witness. Now you're just attesting something is true, but you're not even attesting something is true. You've even watered it down, so you're not even claiming something is true. So we don't know which of the seven reasons you're voting absentee. So this was the basis of my lawsuit because I was holding in reserve some very damaging issues, and here's where it goes. Remember I said the election procedure manual would become a big problem of interpretation of the law? The Attorney General and the Secretary of State are now in conflict of interest. They're violating separation of powers because the Secretary of State is writing the manual and redefining the word affidavit, even though the state legislature has defined an affidavit for election purposes. See, our state laws in, I think, two hundred and sixty two places defines an affidavit. In election law, it defines it in twelve places. So in this case, it says very specifically, whenever there's an election statute that requires the execution of an affidavit, it must be done so in front of an official authorized by law to administer an oath. So this is the law. This is the will of the people by their representative body. the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have conspired together to redefine that instrument, redefine the will of the legislature. So here's what they did. The election procedure manual is about that thick. It's it's five hundred pages of guidance. And on the inside cover, it says this is not law. This is not law, but they've been forcing it and convincing your local election officials who are not educated in the constitution that it is law for since nineteen seventy nine. So to them, it is law. So they don't read the inside cover. And so this isn't law. If you need legal advice, seek legal. the lawyer for the municipal association. We should be paid a salary through discounts. Right. Right. So that's what you should do. And then ready for this. So here's the, their definition. Cause see the moderator when he, before he gets to count an absentee ballot, he has to do three things. One, the moderator, this is why he shouldn't be using a machine. And originally when they put machines in the service, absentee ballots could not be counted by a machine because the absentee ballot notary certificate and the signature couldn't be examined by a machine. So they stripped away the eyewitness verification that the ballot was legal. So what they did is they redefined it. So here's the three exemptions they consider permissible execution of an affidavit. One, as long as the voter is registered and the name is the same name as the voter on the checklist, it's permissible. And the voter doesn't have to declare why it is he's voting. That's step A. That's ridiculous, okay? Doesn't even need to tell you why he's voting absentee. Don't want to hurt his feelings. B, the affidavit is properly executed if the signature is illegible. You can't read it. You have to assume the voter is disabled and count the ballot. You can open the envelope. Mind you, the law says that if all of these things apply... The moderator is supposed to not open the envelope, supposed to write in red ink across the face of the ballot, defective for failure to execute a proper affidavit. The last one is the killer. This is how the twenty twenty election was stolen. If you claim to be assisting a voter who's disabled, You print your name and your signature on the envelope. But here's the kicker. We don't know who that person is because that person isn't the registered voter. Your local NGO, I'm guessing, is doing a lot of that and or who knows, you know? Exactly. So those three exemptions. So what have you done? You have the Secretary of State's office in a long-term conspiracy to continue to manipulate the counting. So here's the kicker. If he doesn't do his job and he's been convinced that this is a proper way to do his job, he removes the ballot from the envelope and sticks it in a machine. And once you stick it in a machine, you can't reconcile it with its authenticating instrument. Remember I told you the ballot law commission? Unbelievable. The ballot law commission will count these ballots as legal documents because they're not a court of law. Because in a court of law, that is an illegal affidavit. That's why they created the ballot law commission. So that's why the Supreme Court said I have standing over six items. One, that this violates. They didn't render an opinion, but they said Mr. Richard has standing because he has equal protection rights under the state constitution. He has equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. We are concerned that you're counting unverified ballots. The inability to recount them lawfully is a secondary problem. And lastly is you're certifying the election. You're certifying the election with unverified, uncertified ballots. And oh, by the way, these are all violations of federal law. You're not giving the people of the state a free and fair and equal election process when doing federal elections. Key, federal elections, because that's where the teeth, that's why in my case, that's why I'm headed back to the Supreme Court, is that everyone involved doesn't want to answer the federal questions because they're dead in the water if they do so. Now they're going to be forced to do so because even the trial court went ahead and dismissed the case without addressing the federal questions. So, yeah, that's really the nexus of where I'm at right now. And they're in a lot of trouble, especially now that the Trump administration has issued March twenty-fifth an executive order. And even though this one rogue court in Massachusetts said, oh, people shouldn't have to prove they're United States citizens in order to cast a ballot. And that was the other thing I argued. You shouldn't be asking whether a qualified voter is a US citizen. You should be asking them, are they citizens of their own state? Because the states are supposed to be sovereign. And if the states are sovereign, this was the process from where the question was always not are you a resident of the state? Because see, there's a federal law that came to be in the nineteen seventies because a law professor was hired by the University of Tennessee. And when he went, when he moved to Tennessee and registered to vote, Tennessee had already made the change to identifying qualified voters as someone who resides there. Not someone who's born there or has become naturalized to the state. Because if you look at the word, the naturalization process, it is the very definition that your state legislature of most states has assigned to the statutory definition of who a resident is, right? That you, for the foreseeable future, plan to be part of the community and so on and so forth. That's the very definition of a state citizen. But see, they removed that language on purpose and said, hey, we're going to remove the words native, born, or naturalized, and we're simply going to call qualified voters citizen of the United States. Well, that's every American. Every American born in any one of the fifty states or naturalized to that state is a citizen of that state under the Fourteenth Amendment. But they took away that language so that we just refer to them. So what this case I'm talking about in Tennessee makes it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, this man smartly argued the equal protection clause. He says, I'm a new resident and you can't treat a new resident different than an old resident. Sleight of hand, word games. And so this is why this is a problem nationwide. What I just told you is the solution to our problems nationwide that every state in the union needs to go back to defining, because remember, Under the first naturalization and immigration law of seventeen ninety of the first Congress assembled in New York City. This is why history is so important. Remember the states when they formed the federal government specifically delegated to the federal Congress under the article one section eight, the enumerated powers to make a uniform rule of naturalization for foreign born nationals, not American citizens. In the body of that work, the last sentence at that legislation at the federal Congress said the states retain their sovereign authority to define who their states are, who their citizens are. This would solve the problem because guess what you can do? The state as a sovereign body has the full autonomy to define who its citizens are and the feds can't interfere. But if you refer to them as residents, the feds can interfere. Because then you're getting into, again, word games. You're using the wrong words. And this is not by accident, but rather by design, by scheming individuals who have modified our form of government. And again, every lawyer I've ever told this have all said the same thing. Dan, this is extraordinary. We would have never done this. The amount of billable hours to unravel what you've unraveled, it's not possible because the cost factor. And again, in order to stay employed and not be disbarred, they would never make, they would never make these arguments because someone, someone they'd get a talking to one way or the other that you need to stand out these things. And so, yeah, this is where, again, at the federal and state level, governmental power just keeps growing and growing and growing and growing no end in sight. And again, The system will not fix itself because everyone who's a part of the system has a vested interest to keep it going. They earn a living off of keeping the status quo functioning. And I'm their worst nightmare. I would say that you are the worst nightmare. It's really too bad because the whole thing was intentional. The entire takedown was intentional from beginning to end. And we're going to end up paying a price. There's no two ways about it. We're going to either pay a price of getting stuffed into an uncontrollable situation where we absolutely have no rights. We have some now. But, but think about, think about, you know, like the Stassi state where you have no rights. They tell you where to live, who lives, who dies, what you're going to work. You're not worth anything. You're gone. You're executed. That's the, that's the extreme, right? But do you, do you have any rights anymore is my question. And let me, let me tell you why I don't think you do. Okay. Do you have standing rights? That's what they do, right? No, that shouldn't even be part of the conversation. If it's in the Bill of Rights, of course you have standing. Right? It's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous that they say, what is their favorite legal term that I've discovered? Is as long as we harm, see, understanding protocol, you have to establish that the injury was exclusively to you, that it's particularly how you were harmed And the concept is that as long as we screw everyone equally, it's OK. That you can't bring a case because a case like in my situation, those other five counts, they were dismissed on standing. We didn't even get an opinion on those other issues based on standing. So they left me my equal protection arguments because they were so powerful, because I was able to prove the fraud. The fraud is these unverified, uncertified absentee ballots. We've got a disparity in counting ballots, one Oh three to one thirty five. It's not equal. It's not fair. And yeah. So when you when we think of it, it's it's subject to again. Now you've got to hire a lawyer to protect your rights as well. That shouldn't be the case. Every in my opinion. Every American citizen should have an adequate education in state and federal civics so that they have the capacity to be able to stand for themselves because if they don't, how can you call that informed consent? How can the government force its will upon people generation after generation where you've stripped their ability to understand the nature of the social compact? Because this is what we have now, that your rights are only if you're willing to hire a lawyer. Otherwise, the system is too complicated. And there are some of us that learn how to do it on our own, but still. I took a course, took a course that's called how to win in court without a lawyer. It's twenty five hours long. Right. Guy out of Florida, an attorney out of Florida teaches the course. He makes money. It's not expensive. I think cost me two hundred fifty dollars at the time. And I thought to myself, you know, if the course is straightforward, it isn't complicated. But basically his premise was that if or after taking the course, I thought to myself, you know, if it only takes twenty five hours to why does not every child that goes to school learn the fundamentals not to practice law but to have the fundamental knowledge of how to do business how to defend your property your rights and your family and not need a lawyer it's not by accident see they need you know when you look at my bar association you will discover that its first stated purpose to ensure good legal services to ensure that the lawyers of the state do a good job. That's its stated first purpose. But I would argue its real purpose is its second stated goal to ensure the profit and emolument of its membership. And that's exactly what we have. So foreign, the Federal Reserve System, it's the fourth we have. The Federal Reserve today is the fourth central bank. And every step of the way, the legal class, The legal society, who hires them? The global elitist started with the Rothschild family. Nothing new under the sun, as King Solomon said. Generation after generation goes by, more of the same. Frightening, actually. It's horrible. And thinking about everything that's going on, going back to the attorneys tied in with the insurance, it's incredible. It's incredible how far they've gotten their claws into this. Anyone who goes along with this is also, in my opinion, guilty of... Treason. Yeah, treason. They're guilty of treason, top to bottom. And I have no problem saying that. Yep. That's why I said what I did when I spoke at the Constitution Party convention. And I asked if anyone in the audience was a lawyer, not knowing that your president was, but he was asked afterwards, you know, I didn't say anything out of order, out of line. I spoke the truth. The truth is true. Well, and I think it's taken people a ways to wise up and to wake up too, because everyone's been under this incredible programming and been kept ignorant for a reason. Frederick Graves is the guy's name that made that course. And I've had him on my show before. So he's the one that the Brunson brothers learn from, too. Awesome. Awesome. So there's he's a he's a real interesting, real interesting guy. Awesome. Yeah. So so and and I actually bought into it when you brought it up. I bought into it a couple of years ago and then I had him on the show because I wanted to see what he was talking about, because I knew that. He's the one that taught the Brunson brothers with their case, that the case is still going. So, you know, it's amazing how we learn from each other and such. I cannot believe the scope. You know, his is basically the process of doing pro se. The amount of information you have on the Constitution and how we got here is just absolutely unbelievable. It just blows my mind. I have to pinch myself sometimes and understand because this is my background. My background is I'm a police dog trainer. Yeah, it's just, you know, but if you have someone who is motivated, they're going to figure it out without the constraints of what they built into the system. Right. Every single time. If somebody's not on their payroll, that's the person that needs to solve the problem, not the experts, not the people sitting in the seats. It's people like you. It's people like Vicki. It's people like me who are out there shaking the cages a little bit and causing some disruption because we're not tied to anything. We have nothing to lose. We've got everything to lose if we refuse to step forward and do what needs to be done. By the way. Well, this is... Article X, right of revolution. We have the constitutional right of revolution. That's why I set out to prove that there was no redress of grievances. That's why my first case, I put the legislature on notice and told them, hey, you've got to fix these problems. And they didn't want to, which led to... Now I'm headed back to the Supreme Court for the third time. Wow. Wow. Well, you keep fighting. This is amazing. And keep teaching us too. So I'd like to come back again next week because I'm really enjoying this. I learned so much. It's like just unbelievable amount. If anybody else out there feels a little lost at times, I think there's good reason for that because there's so much information here. that it's probably worth watching it a couple of times so that we get it into our brains. And you're not going to catch this stuff with one pass through. No, no. This is the other reason why I have people like yourself, John Tater, Mike Bambas, Greg Martini. the Liberty essentials people from the constitution party here in Michigan, the U S taxpayers party, where we're talking about these things over and over again, because the little details come out every single time, little tiny details. They sink in and go, Oh, that aha moment happens. Exactly. Exactly. And this has been the, the good news is I've learned a lot of this stuff. The bad news is I have to regulate how much information I give out. It's like a fire hose. Well, but I think it's good because you connect the dots. And so we just have to go back and re-listen to it, think about it, pause, maybe look a few things up and become an active participant in learning. That's the one thing that is truly missing is being that active participant in our learning process. So when we listen to people, go back and say, huh, I never thought about this. I'm going to look up the organic act and know what he's talking about. Huh. Right. I'm going to look up Article X, huh, and then have that furthering of, I don't know, when we ask our own questions, that's when we start really learning. And it starts with somebody like yourself coming out and fire hosing us with information. It's necessary because then all of a sudden the pieces are there and starts falling into place. It's not, they have made it almost too easy for us to learn through their pretended education system. because we're not learning anything. They're just keeping us occupied instead of having us be an active participant. I was watching something on AI schools. The people that are coming out of AI schools because it's an act of participation. I'm not saying that this is the only answer, but I'm saying it's one of them we should look at. People will ask questions, look it up or ask IA. AI will spit out an answer, go back and verify it from original sources. And so they end up kind of almost building their own curriculum within the curriculum. Tailored to how their brain works and such. I kind of think it's kind of genius, actually, to go down this this path. You know, I'm a homeschool mom. You have to have somebody that kind of can say, OK, putting things in front of you and then getting people to ask the questions and push it further in the areas they're interested in. That's something that needs to happen. I love this. Thank you so much. And I look forward to next week. This is extraordinary. Do you have any closing? Let me say a prayer and then we'll go to closing comments or anything else that comes to mind that maybe you want to bring up. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Daniel and for Vicki and all the wonderful people that are out there listening and participating in this to bring back the Republic. We really, all of us need to be involved in this. And we just thank you for these opportunities to learn, to be our participant in what's going on. Not sitting back and waiting for other people to fix their situation, but to get involved, to move forward, to lean on you, Lord Jesus, to... follow your leading in the direction that you want us to go. You're just, it's extraordinary. And I just pray too, that the manufacturing we were talking about earlier, that we find people that are really interested in that and that we figure out ways as you lead us to bring manufacturing and business back to the United States so that not everything is going overseas. We really need to be a strong nation, America first. Thank you so much for President Trump, for all the wonderful people that are working with him. Thank you for General Flynn, Admiral Rogers, and those that have the guts to stand for this nation and what it stands for. Thank you for every single person who's listening, who is willing to put their time, their treasure, and their sacred honor on the ground or on the line for this nation. We ask that we would always do things in service to you. We love you so very much. You've given us so many wonderful things. We pray for people who are having health issues right now, like my daughter. And I ask that you would help her. She's going through some issues. Daniel, everybody else that's out there, please bless every single person who's having some health issues right now. And I ask that you would restore them completely to complete health, that they would be able to serve you with all of their gifts that you've given us by your strength, your power, and your leading. We love you so very much. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. Amen. So yeah, my daughter blew her Achilles tendon. That's painful. And I just saw a picture. She went in to see the surgeon today. So I'm pretty sure she's going to be having surgery here pretty quick. But it was a freak accident. Nothing that should have made it go. But she's in a lot of pain. And it's going to be probably quite a long time before she's actually going to be functional and walk again. right right well um thank you again for the opportunity and uh my parting thought is um why did I get involved I realized that if you're not involved someone else is going to show up in your place and make decisions about your life and if you got to either look yourself in the mirror the only person who's going to do something about it is yourself and like as franklin said We are Republic if we can keep it. And that requires an educated citizenry. And that's my mission. That's my goal. I think that this is very, very important to remember that, you know, I've put my phone number out there for people all the time and you're willing to, anybody's, if you're willing to text me or call, I'm, I will take the call or the text for sure. But I ask people to please text first because if I'm busy, I won't pick it up right away, but I will get back to you. Six one six four three zero four four one zero. It's important for people to get involved. Um, We're trying to help seat these local offices, state offices, anything with the Constitution Party. The U.S. Taxpayers Party is the Constitution Party in Michigan. Trying to change the name to Manchester National Party. But we have obstructionists in place. That would be Jocelyn Benson and Jonathan Brader. They're obstructionists so that they can keep their little power structure with a two-party system. If... something is going in a direction where it's got the blessing of the state paid employees, you got a problem. We have a problem. Because there, as you said, and you laid this out absolutely beautifully, and I really appreciate your clear thinking. I can't even imagine the hours and the time that you've invested in learning this stuff. And such, if they are taking a paycheck or involved, they're not going to want to change it. They do not want to see this thing go away. They've got a sweet deal where they're in charge of resources, people, the rules, the money, the favors. And the courts. And the courts. They're not going to change it other than to vote themselves in more money. more favor and more power. We're going to have to do this in a completely different way. We have to think differently. And it can't be going right straight to fundraising. It's got to be in personal involvement and we can outperform them. But that means we're going to have to get together and do this together as one nation under God. And I'm loving this. We will see you next Monday. And to all of you, here is my twenty twenty two protests. Ding, ding, ding, ding. Go to Donna Brandenburg for Governor dot com. Brandenburg for Governor dot com because I'm the best non-conceiver who's ever not conceived in the history of the United States of America. And I'd like to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump about this and cowboy boots. We'll see who wears it better. I win because I wear them every day. And then we'll talk about real stuff. With that said, I really do think that the United States is going in a good direction. It's going to be a little bumpy and a little painful along the way. And it's not that it's anybody's fault necessarily. It's that we had some very evil people programming us, programming the system, taking advantage of things. doing the wrong thing, killing people, selling us off one piece at a time towards the global powers. Now it's going to be a little painful for us fighting our way out of the hole, but it's not undoable. It's not unrealistic. We just have to come together and realize that when somebody quotes a group, negate it right then and there. either you're an American or you're not. Either you're a citizen of Michigan or you're not. If you're standing in this organization, this governance that we have a compact with, as you said, It is the people standing together making decisions that we the people. That means we're going to need a lot of people who are just everyday Americans. Just go to work. The heroes that go to work and hold the families together every day, hold the jobs together to bring the jobs back and be willing to do whatever it takes to hit that goal. And I don't care how much crap they're slinging at us. This is going back to the first hour I told the story of my brother throwing horse crap on me when we were putting manure on the garden. You don't stop. You keep going because you got a goal. And the goal is that no matter what anybody throws at us, It doesn't matter. Don't get butt hurt. Realize you're better. You're better than this. We don't stop. We're patriots. We're mutts. We're Americans. We're the toughest of the tough. We're the best of the best. And this is the way it's going to be. So we're going to continue to go forward. But thank you so much for being on here today. And just so everybody knows, God bless you all. God bless everyone whom you love. And God bless America. Make it a great day. Take the responsibility on yourself and run with it. Get in a good group of people. Call me. Call me for the Constitution Party. We've got to end this two-party monopoly on our system. They're working for, I don't care what they say, what they say they believe in. They've done nothing. Nada. They have not addressed this situation to fix it. We're going to have to make some serious changes, or we're going to keep beating our head against that brick wall, going nowhere. until we are absolutely a bloody mess done and dead and I do believe that so with that said and we'll see y'all next week have a great day today thanks daniel you're welcome talk to you soon bye