Radio Ranch with Roger Sayles

This mirror stream on the Global Voice Radio Network is brought to you in part by

mymitobust.com

for support

of the mitochondria

like

never before.

Also,

fatfix.com,

brand new product still in prelaunch.

Check it out. Phatphix.com.

It's also brought to you by iterraplanet.com

and the Price International

I terra care terahertz frequency wand. Here's more info about that. The I terra care device has the ability to awaken

dormant stem cells in the bone marrow. Yes.

We have slipping stem cells in our bone marrows.

As you keep blowing this on your spine, you're activating

the stem cells. And guess what? You're gonna create brand new lungs, brand new kidneys.

Eventually, as you keep using this over time, you will have brand new organs,

glands, and tissues in your bodies. And that's a great news. You have to keep blowing this on your spine because this is what the great Hippocrates said. There's a way to hit the bones, then all diseases

can be treated.

Activate that. Awaken that stem cells in your bone marrows.

Hit the bones

using the future of medicine, which is frequency.

This is your time. Grab your one device and focus on freedom. For more You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.

Alrighty. Here we go.

Thank you, Alvin. Another,

episode here. Another

installment, if you will, of the radio ranch.

And, today is the January

27.

Roger Sales, your host, and,

we have, for at least an hour, we have kinda John might as well be considered a cohost.

Been around here long enough. So, John Kasarab is with us this morning, of course. And,

we're on, I don't think we're on a full slate of those platforms. Oh, yes. We are. Paul? But, oh, we are. Okay. Well, pardon me. Hell yes. I stand I stand I stand corrected.

And, so we are on a full slate of them, and mister Beaner identifies them. So,

let's give them their proper recognition here.

Well, let's see if I can get through this without

Yeah. Using my cough drop button.

Yeah. Okay. We're on radiosoapbox.com.

Thanks to Paul. Hi, buddy. Cross Pond. We're on +1 069

in Chicago for the first hour.

We are on

EurofolkRadio.com.

Thanks to pastor Eli James,

Global Voice Radio Network. That is

radio.globalvoiceradio.net

or live.globalvoiceradio.net

because we are live right now.

We're on homenetwork.TV,

freedom nation TV,

go live TV, and stream life Tube,

WVOU,

home network,

live stream life.

They are brought to us by the NET family

of broadcast services driven by WDRN

productions, our

friends out in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Good morning, Roger. I think I got through it. No. I'm gonna mute before I do something obnoxious.

Okay. Well, let's lord forbid. We don't want that to happen. No.

So, okay. Well, John,

I've got a real treat for the audience. Paul, if you haven't seen it yet, I sent you a link in Skype this morning,

and I'd love about about a twenty minute segment or a little bit more I'd like to play.

Don't know when. I'll,

John would probably wanna hear this. I don't know if you're busy after your time with us or not, but,

we could we could squeeze it in Hey. Listen. I hour.

If you want to. Yeah. Hold on a second, John, and we'll,

but we might hold it till the second hour, and it's,

last night's Barnes,

Viva Barnes Law, and he does about twenty

little over twenty minutes on birthright citizenship.

Quite interesting. Yes, John.

It's Mark Levin. I got I just sent a link to Paul last night with Mark Levin discussing fourteenth amendment and birthright citizenship. That was really good. Okay. Well, how is that is that a whole hour or what? Seventeen minutes.

Good. So we got about half an hour, a little bit more for forty minutes of, discussions from people

that will have some a little more insight into it than the average man on the street. Oh, I think it's great. He did a great job. Also, Joby Weeks is finally they're fighting back against, you know, going after him and Bit Club. He just announced a multi billion dollar lawsuit.

Really? Going after the people that shut him down.

Well, let's pray for that one. You better believe it.

Let's pray for that one. I might be up there with Pretty. You and I might be with Pretty. Have you ever heard Pretty on here yet? No.

She's a gal from Tampa. Tom,

Tom Dee brought her to us,

and she's one of these bit club millionaires.

And, just somehow I hadn't got the whole story, but she's,

an avid cyber person and has done very well with Bitcoin. Evidently got in it, got some, and, and profited off of it at least to this point. So but she's off at the inauguration. She's gonna go to the inauguration and then hang for a couple of days somewhere.

So we hadn't heard her back yet. So, but, anyway, we got one of those listeners. Yep.

Well, that would be

great news because they took that whole company down on, if I'm correct, on just a flimsy charge of wire fraud.

And, it was set up correctly. It was really well managed,

and

I would be very,

I'd be quite ecstatic if it came back. So let's cross Me too. They do what feds do. They throw everything that they can think of and stuff that doesn't apply, Adam.

Well, I mean, you know, Glenn,

when they prosecuted John and Glenn, they had 90 charges against Glenn. Yeah.

And virtually none of them had to do with any of

this. Well, that's what they're doing to other people. Just the most egregious thing right now is is that guy down in North Carolina, the local sheriff and,

county guys, they put him in jail for actually helping people.

I haven't heard this. And they,

they did it on basis of a

bad check.

So apparently, he had written a check that weren't enough funds in the account. He made the check whole right away

and they still have hold him and held him in jail and they're letting him go.

And,

Bannon is

fit to be tied because this guy was out there

before FEMA. You know, he he had a location and he just stayed in that location and started distributing supplies and helping people. And they don't they didn't like that. So Yeah. No good deed goes unpunished with that branch. Let's let's hope that,

well, let's hope it's one of the that's one of the things that gets cleaned up. And if Bannon's on top of it, you would imagine that Trump's hearing about it if they let him get to Trump. You don't even know if they let him get to him with, this, chief of staff that he's got,

who's an establishment

person, and,

I forget her name.

Ben and spin and, in in there every day. Every day.

In the in the what? With Trump? Yes.

Okay. Well, she evidently is the keeper of the appointment book. And if she doesn't give you the okay, you don't get to see him or hear him. Well, that's the way it's always been. You gotta say. But so it's capable.

Well, maybe. But,

anyway,

so that's another thing here. He's did you happen to see his, conference in LA last Friday afternoon?

Yes. I I'm as much as I could. It was fabulous.

I mean, you wanna see about,

an administrator, how to administrate?

Man, that was a really good good,

what, thirty minutes on that. I love it when she shut the that mayor down. Oh, yeah.

And he did too. Yeah. So if any of you have not seen that, I think we talked about it briefly on Saturday.

That's all over the news this morning in Chicago that governor Pritzker and the mayor in Chicago

are absolutely

defying

Homan

Uh-huh. To go in and get these guys out of the jails. Uh-huh. Wasn't it in Chicago over the weekend where they got a whole bunch of them, couple hundred of them with Yeah. About 300.

In front of the Trump Towers there in Chicago?

Well, they got about 300 in the jails, and they're actually assisting them to change their names

Yeah. Of course. And keep them in there. I can't believe that the residents

at there

haven't jerked those guys out of their offices and and

gave them a what for. Well, they've been doing it in at least,

in front of city council meetings and stuff. They have not,

excuse me, stopped giving that, mayor, the the black communist mayor, his, up his comeuppance.

We'll see. It's gonna be interesting. Pritzker and him keep screwing around with that, and then they may end up their little fat asses in jail. Speaking of Pritzker.

That was which was discussed this morning is just going to put those guys in in in chains. Good. Denver too and anybody else,

LA included, any of them that do and come up again because you already got the ruling from the ninth circuit. You know about that, Jack. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the most liberal circuit appellate circuit in the whole system, the ninth circuit out there in San Fran,

said, yes. This is constitutional.

And it must have been like getting pliers and pulling it out of them. You know? They're also damn left

wackos.

But, regardless, that's happening, and, hopefully, we'll find out more about that today. No. I was referring to a picture. I saw a little, somebody talking about it. There's about several hundred in front of I thought it was the Trump Tower in Chicago. May have been in another city, but I think it was Chicago. No. I haven't seen it. And and,

home Homan? Isn't that his name? Yeah. Okay. Homan. And them didn't take the bait because that was a setup.

K? They're gonna get them to charge in there and then pull off. Somebody shoots somebody, and all of a sudden, it's it's on. You know? Yeah. And Homan didn't take the bait. See, we're getting smarter on these guys. Okay? Trump

excuse me. Trump

says, the DEI stuff's gone.

And then he sends a memo to all federal employees saying, if anybody in your unit is in charge of this DEI

stuff and you see them just changing the label and still doing the same stuff, you report them. So e now they're even figuring in the enemy's moves that we understand

into whatever they're doing. I think it's well, it's a step in the right direction.

Listen,

Ben is not an a newbie to what's going on with the enemy.

I know.

So,

anyway, we're, we're making some progress. May not be as much as you want, but considering where we've been for four years, this is considerable progress in my mind.

I what Trump did to the Colombian guy, the president Yes. Haven't we? We haven't had a chance to get to that yet. Probably some people in the audience haven't heard from that. Our neighbor here,

to the north has got a what's the do do you remember the guy that said Perez?

The guy that's the president, he was the guy that started the shining path.

He was?

Yes. The terrorist group down here.

K? They elected him president last cycle. That's who we're dealing with here.

And Trump tried to send, I think,

at least two, I believe they were c one thirties or c one thirty fours. Those were pretty big cargo out, planes

and

full of really heinous criminals they'd released out of their jails.

And this Colombian president,

wouldn't wouldn't let them land.

And so Trump came in and said, okay. Well, we're gonna start putting some sanctions on you. He did stuff like, what if the tariffs were 50 per 25%,

they were raised to 50%.

But this was the real kicker.

They couldn't do business with any US banks.

Oh. Columbia.

So that probably is the one that got him off his rear end. But regardless,

I think 20 wasn't very long after that.

Wasn't very long after that at all. The presidential plane from Columbia showed up somewhere up there and got all the prison all those prisoners were brought back to Columbia.

He volunteered the presidential plane to help Yes. People. Yeah. He sent it to to bring them back.

So,

listen.

You know, I'm I'm telling you, Trump is just a he is an unusual

individual in history.

I mean, look back through history, and you won't find very many people like him. We're just, I think, very blessed.

And,

I I love to see all this stuff unfold and all these liberals

getting their panties in a wad over it and trying to do all kinds of stuff like they're trying to do on this birthright citizenship thing that we're gonna

evidently spend a good bit of time today on. Now, John, do you want to,

delve into that, or do you want you got some testimonials

from the iTero one that we have Well, they're not gonna go away. But I'd I'd like to get on the record this Mark Levin thing and that other one that you've got. Alright.

Well, let's play talk, and we get both of them. I don't have access to either one of them.

You don't have I cannot get Skype to open, so I don't have yours, and I don't see it in see the link from John in my email.

I sent it on your phone. Systems. I sent it on your phone.

Okay.

So I don't know. Maybe I can maybe I can get it, but you guys gotta talk for a couple of minutes. And Skype is absolutely

a no go. So What what's wrong with Skype? Is it the computer?

Mine worked fine this morning. Is it your computer or what? Yeah. It's it's gonna be local.

One computer,

one computer needs an update on both Skype and the Microsoft Store, and Skype is not downloading.

Any other computer won't run Skype, period.

So

Skype sucks. Okay. Well, here's what you do. Well, it didn't used to. It does now because Microsoft bought it.

Can you go on

I guess I could send it to you in email,

the link to you in an email. Well, I can I can do that? I'm a

I'll Well, we can do the Mark Levin one, and then by that time I can work on that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's fine. Well, I'd like to hear Levin. And,

he used to he was I always thought he was the,

Sean Hannity's handler from the Mossad, tell you quite frankly.

But

but he does have some pretty good legal

insight. He is an attorney and all that. So,

we can do that and then come up with the Barnes thing second and then open it up for discussion.

There's an awful lot here. I have not heard the Levin thing. Does he mention the Lockean view of this,

John John Locke?

I no. I don't remember that, but he remember he he, certainly discusses all the cases that we talk about. Okay. Well, so does Barnes, but he I remember when Hannity started out here in LA, and I'll tell you, I was I've never liked the guy. The guy is just a weasel. I don't know how he's maintained where he's been for so long.

You wanna know why? To go. You wanna know why? Yeah. Because Rush Limbaugh's brother is his agent. Oh.

Okay. Wow. Hey Roger.

And away from all that bullshit, Scott Sean's a pretty nice guy. But, boy, am I disappointed in that guy. I do know him personally and met him in Atlanta. We had a pretty,

pretty good relationship there. He used to speak often, and,

I'm very disappointed in what he's turned out to be. Yes, Sketch?

Yes. I just I I don't know if this helps, but, Paul, I it's on rumble of Viva Fry, and it starts at

two hour and seven

yeah. Two two o seven seconds and twenty one

seconds. Yeah. Two minutes.

Rumbling.

Yeah. Pick that up, and he covers it about twenty minutes. Does a very good overview, and I just wanna make sure some of the

terms that he mentions when we get into it that you're aware of out front, like this lock in thing.

You know, John Locke, the, guy that you hear Brent talk about a lot, was

a a hero of Thomas Jefferson's, and the declaration was almost word for word from lots ideas.

And

so,

they he wrote a book, John Locke did, called Two Treaties of Government. We wrote a lot of books. I'm sure this one was called Two Treaties

of Government. And what he's referring to when he says the Lockean approach

is

that the second book there is is titled government by contract,

and that's where we are. K? So just so you get a little background on that, and he mentions

some of the Indian stuff, and that's,

Wong Kim Ark, which I we'll see if Levin mentions or not. Anyway, there's a couple of things I wanted to Oh, he does mention, Wong Kim Ark. He he does? Yep.

What about l v Wilkins?

I don't quite remember. Okay. Alright.

Okay. Well,

Paul, are we are are did you find what we're looking for?

Yeah. Levin Levin should be queued,

launching it now.

You got the cough again? Yeah. He's coughing.

Man, we need to get you out of that New York crap and down to Georgia, buddy.

Then

I mean, between Mark and you and Julie back in

December and all that, man, y'all sound like death warmed over. Was that you, Larry?

Yeah. I just wanted to mention, back in the fall, I sent you a video.

It was a, interview between Sean Hannity

and,

James Traffikant, and I don't know if you ever watched it.

This was right before James Trafficant,

was killed

Demised.

Or died

depending on how you look at it.

And Sean Hannity was very condescending

toward

James Trafficante.

And then, you know, Trafficante brought up this,

this idea that every time a major bill was presented to the congress,

they always ask the question,

what will Israel think about this?

And Sean Hannity just thought that was horrendous.

Oh, yeah. No. He's, he he's they got him.

And part of the reason is because

he had some neighbors when he was young growing up that were Jewish that were very nice to him, that were good Jews.

And so he,

projects that on all of them, which we know is not true. K? And there there are some good Jewish folks. Alright?

So,

we got we got a new member of our, our group here that's that's Jewish. So damn.

And, but, boy, there's some real rotten ones too. So, anyway, yeah, I know Sean's got his problems. I don't listen to him anymore,

unfortunately. But he was a nice guy when I knew him. He wasn't

totally

uncompromised

at that point. Yeah. He was, Sean Henry was making him out to be a conspiratorial

nut job.

Oh, traffic jam. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, he didn't wear a CIA pin on his lapel for nothing, Larry.

So

alright. Roger?

Yes. Yes.

Hey, Roger. I I might have missed your show,

during this time. Yeah. We're getting yeah. Hold on a second, Julie.

We're getting an after echo on on the conversation. We're all good to see if we can find that. Got it. Go ahead, Julie.

Yeah. I might have missed your show,

where I had my pneumonia.

Did you guys go over house resolution 25?

No. I don't know what it is. Okay. Because there's a guy by the name of Earl l Carter.

He's in the House of Representatives. He's a Republican out of Georgia,

and he's just introduced

the bill to promote freedom

freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax

and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service Uh-huh. And enacting a national sales tax to be administered by the by the state.

I kinda think the International Monetary Fund's gonna probably have something to say about that. It's just a house resolution.

It hadn't been voted on yet. It hadn't gone to the senate, it hadn't gone to Trump. So, you know, there's a lot of things being floated, but they've got to go through a process before they even come in any kind of contact with the reality. And I think you're gonna see a pretty good fight with Trump on change and getting rid of the IRS and seeing if tariffs are gonna make up for a tax difference. There was a I don't know if any of you will remember this. You some of you may. It was a book written by a guy named Boston Tea Party,

decades ago called, Goodbye April 15.

I don't know if any of you have ever seen that or not. No. But guys that guy's name was Ralph. So I guarantee if you can find one online, they'll charge you through the nose for it. Anyway, I got to meet him at one of the expos

when we were doing silver on, and he's a real sharp guy.

His real name was Ralph, I believe. But, anyway, in that book, he showed a cartoon

from the late eighteen hundreds. I don't remember exactly when it was, but it was a cartoon of the Well of Congress.

And in the Well of Congress were all these alligators.

Okay?

And and and the caption or the idea was that the tariffs that were being applied were bringing in so much money that the congress was getting corrupt.

Okay? So that was a cartoon popular cartoon back in the eighteen hundreds. Tariffs worked. That's why they don't want,

our guys don't want them in there. You know? They wanna drop all the tariffs and have this, quote unquote, free trade, which is not, quote, unquote, fair trade. It's just free.

Free for them, and they screw you on this end. So,

you know, on what China charges, etcetera, etcetera. It's all a big scam, and I'm glad to see,

Trump going back to the tariff thing. We'll see if they can get rid of the IRS or not. But let me take this opportunity after I cough right here.

I have to remind you, if any of you

I got it too. Yeah.

Yeah. No. We can tell. We can all well, one, two, three. We'll all cough together. Okay?

If you do have any inclination to try and take advantage of the

last three years you've paid in,

I would not dilly dally on that. If you're looking at that, I'd get it in process

as quick as possible.

And, hopefully, we'll have Mark back here pretty quick. He may be with us today. We talked yesterday

and Saturday. He was sounding much better.

So, hopefully, we'll get Mark back here pretty soon. Yes, ma'am.

Can you, do the can you do that at the state level too or only the federal?

Only the federal to my and to my knowledge.

May I make a comment on the on the business of good taxes?

You know, don't count your chickens because

what's gonna happen is is it's gonna open the door to all kinds of state actions

and fees

and,

anything they can think of to, jack up,

take up the slack for not having a federal income tax. You're gonna Well,

look. $37,000,000,000,000

in bogus debt right now. If people would listen to us, they could we can get rid of almost all of it, you know,

because it's all based on fraud. But,

regardless of that, we'll see. They're gonna fight that tooth and nail, and it's because they can use the IRS politically. They don't just use it to collect money. They use it to terrorize their enemies and their, opposition.

You wanna have a corporation

and start one that competes with one of these established corporations they control, they're gonna regulatory

shut your ass down. Okay? I mean, it's got political implications

all over the place. Alright?

So, anyway, we'll see. That's in the future. It's being talked about. There's another guy, get this. Then it may be the same guy, Julie,

has has,

set up a resolution

where a president

that serves one term and then is out of office.

And if he gets reelected again, he can serve an extra term that's contiguous.

So that's being floated also. K? So, we'll see how they shake out. Yep. We'll see how they shake out.

Okay.

We go you wanna launch into the, Yeah. We better get going. Yeah. Alright. Well,

well, John, do you wanna hear on your schedule, do you wanna hear the Barnes one, and then we can play the eleven one after you leave if you've got to or vice versa? I'll leave that decision up to you.

Yeah. Play whichever one you got queued. Let's go. I'm gonna stay safe. I'm gonna stay. Let's let's go. Let's do this.

What?

Hello, America. I'm Mark Levin, and this is Life, Liberty, and Levin, Saturday. Thank you for being here. We have two great guests, Molly Hemingway and Peter Schweitzer, and we're gonna dig deeply

into the Biden crime family and much, much more. But before we do,

no country can survive

open borders.

No country can survive the kind of immigration, quote, unquote, policies we have,

period,

and we won't. And Donald Trump has recognized that before anybody else, and he's talked about securing the border, and he's talked about chain migration, and he's talked about these open borders, and he's talked about what else?

Birthright citizenship. Wow.

Birthright citizenship. Doesn't it sound like,

well, it's a right?

What is birthright citizenship?

Where does birthright citizenship

come from?

What kind of a country would purposely have something called

birthright citizenship? We have it. Who put it in place? Who passed it? The vast majority of countries in the world, they said no way. You can't have foreigners walking into your country having children, automatically they're citizens.

That's insane

that they convey

citizenship

under their own children by claiming the jurisdiction by setting foot in your own country.

That's insanity.

I went into this about a month ago. I think too many people may have been watching football at the time, but I want to address it again because it's front and center. And I am watching reporters

who have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm watching reporters who have every idea what they're talking about,

but they're misinforming

you and intentionally so.

I'm watching the usual legal analysts

all over cable, all over the networks.

I've been watching them. They're on sonograms and airport radar wherever they can get a gig,

misleading you and lying to you

about this whole subject. So we're gonna do this. We're gonna paint by the numbers. We're gonna make it very understandable

because this is your country.

And despite what the New York Times said a few months back,

no.

People do not have the right to reshape our country, to change the citizenship, to change the electorate,

to change the entire culture.

We elect people, we, the American people, we, the actual citizens of the country, to represent us,

not to represent foreigners.

This is completely upside down.

So let's take this by the numbers.

It starts here. The notorious Supreme Court decision in 1857

called the Dred Scott decision.

That helped precipitate the Civil War.

It held that no black person of African descent

could be an American citizen

even if that person was a freed slave, period.

So black people in America

had no ability to ever become citizens.

It was an outrageous decision based purely

on the race

of individuals.

It was an unconstitutional

decision issued by the US Supreme Court.

After the bloodiest war in our history,

over 700,000

casualties,

every corner of The United States affected,

North and South.

When that war was over,

in 1866,

the Republican controlled Congress

passed a federal civil rights law.

This civil rights act was the precursor to the fourteenth amendment.

And

its citizenship provision was intended to reverse the holding in the Dred Scott case.

That is,

and I want you to listen very carefully to this because this is the relevant part.

In that 1866

Civil Rights Act, our first Civil Rights Act,

all persons born in The United States

and not subject to any foreign

power,

excluding Indians not taxed, which we don't need to address right now,

are hereby declared to be citizens of The United States. Look at that. And not subject to any foreign power. Remember, this 1866

Civil Rights Act was the basis for the fourteenth amendment.

The fourteenth amendment was adopted by Congress two years later and sent to the states where it was ratified in 1868.

So the Republicans rightly decided that more than a statute was needed

to deal with this Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott.

So as part of the post civil war constitutional amendments, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments,

They drafted the fourteenth amendment,

which among other things,

enshrined

citizenship

for blacks of African descent into our constitution.

That states, therefore,

by adopting these amendments,

would apply it to themselves as well as the entire nation, and you needed three fourths of the states. Some of the states were resistant.

Some of the Southern states were resistant. And you know what they were told? You either adopt this or you're not coming back into the country. You're on your own.

And so they did three fourths of the states.

Here's the relevant language. You heard it in the 1866

statute.

That's the precursor to the fourteenth amendment. Two years later, here's the relevant language that was adopted in 1868

by Congress for the Fourteenth Amendment.

All persons born are naturalized in The United States,

and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof subject to the jurisdiction thereof

are citizens of The United States and the states wherein they reside. Okay.

Seems simple enough.

So what did they mean by subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

I noticed some big time

Sunday hosts

on other networks

have specifically excluded that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Why? Because they're pushing an agenda.

Donald Trump issued an executive order. He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship. Why? Because he wants to protect the nation.

He wants to ensure its viability

for the next several hundreds of years.

He wants to secure the border. He does not believe it's his job or the job of the people we elect

to change the makeup of the nation and certainly not to do it through the backdoor.

So what did they mean by subject to the jurisdiction, the rep? We actually know.

The then chairman of the senate judiciary committee, way back then, senator Lyman Trumbull.

Here's what he told us, quote,

subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant not owing allegiance to anybody else, subject to the complete jurisdiction of The United States.

So let's say you come here and you come from Mexico,

and you have a child in The United States.

Under this amendment, they're not automatically

American citizens. Why? Because Mexico

recognized that parent

as a Mexican citizen. Mexico represents

or recognizes that child

as a citizen of Mexico. There's not pure allegiance

to one nation state.

You've got more than one nation state in the mouth.

Senator Jacob Howard, the actual author of this citizenship clause in the fourteenth amendment, he explained that

jurisdiction

meant an allegiance

to The United States, not just a presence

of a baby that's born, an allegiance to The United States

that is not mere presence in The United States. He pointed out that it will not, him quoting him, of course, include persons born in The United States who are foreigners,

aliens

who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.

Could they be clear?

No.

There's absolutely

nothing,

nothing in the language,

the text of the fourteenth amendment citizenship clause that confers

universal birthright citizenship.

There's nothing in the legislative history. They can't quote a single person, the advocates for this position.

Nothing.

Either in the 1866

Civil Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment

debates

to support the idea of universal birthright citizenship? If there is, let's see it right now.

Right now. Let's see it.

They can't produce it.

Now

you hear people on TV say, well, the fact that the language of the of the Civil Rights Act of 1866

was specific about foreigners and so forth and the fourteenth amendment differ,

congress meant to adopt the English common law understanding

that birth within a country's territory is enough to create citizenship. I'm seeing these reporters do this too. They don't even know what they're talking about. They're reading these preposterous briefs by these 20 attorneys general, Democrats in blue states, and they just start quoting from it like it's a like it's it's a prayer from

God.

Nice try.

But there's absolutely

no support for this view anywhere.

And in fact, for decades after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, everyone,

including the Supreme Court of the United States in two rulings,

understood what was meant by jurisdiction

under the fourteenth amendment. We're talking about English common law.

Why would they talk about English common law? They're writing a constitution.

Even today, citizenship is not automatically conferred on the children of diplomats,

tourists,

visa holders, and alike who happen to give birth while in The United States. Gotcha. Birthright citizenship born in the territory of The United no. No. No. You need more than that.

Well, why wouldn't you need more than that for immigrants, especially illegal immigrants?

Doesn't even make any sense. Now advocates for universal birthright citizenship

point to a third Supreme Court decision in 1898,

hundred and '20 '7 years ago,

US versus Wong Kim Ark.

In that case, a child was born of a lawfully present immigrant

and a permanently domiciled Chinese immigrant.

Okay?

The court ruled that that child was therefore a citizen under the fourteenth amendment. Where did he get that from? Nowhere.

A judicial,

incredibly activist decision.

Where did he get the decision in Plessy versus Ferguson

that separate but equal was equal two years earlier in 1896?

Where did that come from? Nowhere.

That's just what they decided to rule.

Now that court

was responding to a blatantly

racist

federal law prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens

due solely to their race and ethnicity.

Just like when the fourteenth amendment was passed

dealing with

former black slaves. It was purely race based, and this court felt it had to step in. It's an activist court,

and so it decided

that in the case, at least of those

those Chinese parents, that that child

is an American citizen. Even so, it was not a decision

based on the known understanding of the fourteenth amendment's language or legislative history, was it?

Therefore, its precedential

value to the current Supreme Court

should be in question

should be in question as a matter of law

as a matter of law. Some have argued that this case holds that the fourteenth amendment conveys birthright citizenship

to the children of lawful immigrants,

like those Chinese immigrants who are born in The United States,

well beyond the specific facts of the case. So not just with this

particular couple, but in all cases,

where you have lawful immigrants,

If they have a child in The United States,

it's birthright

citizenship.

Is that what the constitution says? No. Others argue that, no, this case treats individuals

discriminated against solely because of their race

and making lawful citizenship impossible

for individuals

based solely on their race akin to the freed black slaves for which the amendment was adopted in the first place,

and therefore, applies narrowly to the racial class that was discriminated against. In that case, Chinese Americans at the time.

But here again, please stick with me.

There's no

constitutional

basis for universal

birthright citizenship

illegal immigrants

or illegal immigrants

in the constitution

itself.

Period.

Furthermore,

there's no holding

that confers birthright citizenship

on children of

illegal

immigrants

born in The United States. None. So where did this come from?

Because now it's everywhere.

And the slip and fall lawyers, the ambulance chasers,

say, what? It's in the constitution. Oh, nobody said that. Read the text. It's not in there either.

It's believed that this practice started

with the federal bureaucracy in the executive branch. It's not certain where some people think the Social Security Administration.

Later on, some people think the State Department.

Early on, we can't even be sure

where we can find it.

And yet we're told it's the law of the land and it's enshrined with our constitution.

No. It's not.

The federal courts are capable of doing anything on this case.

Anything.

The Supreme Court will undoubtedly have the final say.

I have serious questions. There are five justices with the courage and commitment to actually uphold the fourteenth amendment

as it was written and intended,

given the political pressures surrounding the universal

birthright citizenship

issue, given how John Roberts,

the chief justice, and justice Barrett

cowardly ducked on the issue of the New York corrupt case against Donald Trump. We had four brave justices who said, yeah. We need to take that case and fix this.

Because some of these justices,

well, they go Hollywood, or they're very concerned about how they are treated in

the Washington Post and the New York Times even though those papers have

really almost no subscribers anymore.

President Trump deserves all the credit in the world for taking this on. The idea that foreigners

can create their own jurisdiction

for their yet to be born children

by simply stepping into our country,

even illegally,

and declaring citizenship is patently absurd. It would be akin to me going to South Carolina tomorrow and say, I'm here. I'm a citizen of South Carolina. What are you talking about?

A citizen of anything. Just because you step into the country. Oh, no. But in America,

you step into the country, you have a baby. That baby is a citizen.

If this had been the understanding at the time the fourteenth amendment was drafted,

which it wasn't, it never would have been adopted by Congress, let alone a super majority of both houses,

and let alone ratified by three fourths of the states, it never would have happened.

This is about politics pure and simple, not the rule of law.

Finally,

those who say you cannot reverse universal birthright citizenship with an executive order or even a congressional statute, which I keep hearing now, You can't change the constitution

with an executive order statute. That's true, by the way. You can't.

But they kinda miss the point entirely, aren't they?

The issue is whether the fourteenth amendment itself is a constitutional

basis for universal

birthright citizenship.

It's not a presumption by me that it is, and therefore, you can't reverse it with an executive order or a statute.

That's what's being challenged.

By issuing an executive order, president Trump's taking it on, head on. He's asserting it's not. Should Congress pass legislation altering birthright citizenship

or eliminating it altogether? It's Congress that's saying no. We wanna challenge this assumption. The issue is not whether you can alter the constitution by other means than an amendment. You absolutely

cannot.

The issue is whether the fourteenth amendment says

what the birthright citizenship crowd

says it says, and it doesn't.

And we still might lose

because the law doesn't seem to be the law anymore.

But I would just warn these judges in the Supreme Court.

Why should we adhere to your rulings

if you don't adhere to the constitution?

Why are your rulings there, therefore,

sacrosanct,

but the text of the constitution is not?

You see what I mean? No. I don't think you on the court see what I mean or even care.

Wow.

For anybody that's new and you're just starting to see how you know, I say you can take any of these issues and dig down for hours. Boy, this is one of them right here. There's a number of them in this whole

scam they got going on. But this one, you can see why it's so contentious,

okay, just from what Levin said there.

John, did you Okay. I got the other one queued too if we wanna go.

Pardon me? I've got the other one queued too if we wanna if we wanna blast right into it. I

I I I do, but there are some important things. We get into another one. You're you're probably won't remember them. Just to We'll talk about the first one then.

Okay.

So, John, can you stick around a little bit today through this? Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna do it for sure. Okay.

Also,

I don't know if you wanna play the Joby Weeks,

video about his lawsuits. 22,200,000,000.0.

Who is Toby Weeks? Toby Weeks was one of the main guys that was going around and promoting the big club.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, of course. And that what happened with him?

He's filing a 22,000,000,000.

Okay. Against them. Against. Right. False prosecution. Okay. Well, good.

Man. Oh, man. If that if they can get that turned around, good lord have mercy. Well, there's a lot of people that were here that were involved. They they might wanna hear it. Yes. Absolutely.

So any,

any comments on the Levin thing?

I'm trying to think. I'll I really would like to almost hear it again. I'll tell you what. Let's go ahead and play the second one if John's gonna be able to hang around

and hear what

Barnes has to overlay on what Levin

just laid out in front of us. Pretty articulately,

by the way. And he was absolutely correct. Fourteenth amendment, the original working title was the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

I did not know that clause was in there about no,

allegiance to to another government. Okay? So that's an interesting thing to discuss.

Yeah. I thought Levin was perfect for what we do. He he was except and you'll see here's these these are I mean, see if you agree. These are two of the, more acclaimed experts on the conservative side in the country. Both attorneys,

both skilled, both with years of practice under their belt, and you're gonna hear forty minutes of talk here, and not one of them is gonna tag it to the feudal system through assigning.

Barnes does more than Levin just did of assigning a political status at birth. Now,

John,

labeled it just tiara, the law of the land.

And now I know I heard Mark mention it, and then I heard Barnes mention it. They say just soleil,

which evidently is the same thing, just a different way of saying it. But,

yeah, why don't you go ahead and we'll have a brisk discussion hopefully afterwards

on, if there's something you want to ask about in that eleven one, write it down, and we'll cover it. We'll discuss it when we get finished with this other one. We just have a, yes, a pretty free for all Monday on this topic, which is right in our wheelhouse.

Yes, Larry.

I just wanted to say Levins said he covered a very important subject in the past,

but people were probably watching football.

Yeah. He talked about this a couple of months ago.

Yeah. And I I find that interesting because I'm always trying to talk to people about your information

and just things in general that have to do with the constitution,

the law, and history.

And these same people, they they have all the football teams memorized. They have all the players memorized.

Yeah. But they they they are clueless when it comes to the things we discussed.

I yeah. You're not the first one to bring that out, Larry. It's,

the way we've been engineered, buddy. As I said, you know, we don't have any freaking idea

how our enemies think, most part.

But, buddy, they know us like the back of their hands.

And this whole thing of them setting this up, what we're talking about right here, so skillfully hidden underneath

is this feudal system, and they knew damn well what they were gonna do. This was all planned out. These guys we're listening to don't get it, but we do because we know the end game, and they don't. That's the difference. K?

So let's roll into the Barnes one, and then we can have a good rich discussion. If there's anything you wanted to bring up about LaVanne again, write it down where you can remember it. Let's roll into Barnes. Here, we'll have about forty minutes of expert overview on this topic.

Right. And because we don't have enough time to finish up the, the barns clip before

the WVOU

sign off, let's take care of that right now. Radiosoapbox.com

and WVOU one zero six point nine FM, Chicago.

Thank you for being with us for the first hour. You don't wanna miss any moment

of this, so you might as well just go to the matrixstocks.com

and grab the eurofolkradio.com

or the link or the Global Voice Radio link, or you can use the free conference call link and join us live on the show because we are gonna power right through this clip, and you will be left hanging if you if you're just hanging on the platforms you're on after the first hour.

Forewarned. Just forearmed.

Absolutely. And I'm all about forearms.

And

and because it appears

that,

mister t is throwing down the gauntlet. Let's see if I can actually get this to play here. Donald Trump Junior here with merchant news. Crap. The world central banks are

making an un skip it.

That's Mark?

It's an ad. Ah, but that leads us to our big debate topic of tonight. There we go. Unfortunately, another contrary and controversial position concerning birthright citizenship. So Trump signs an executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is the idea that a child born in America of illegal nonentrant parents,

does not get does not get granted American citizenship,

which is gonna face legal challenges, and a great many people are predicting that it will the executive order will get struck down as being unconstitutional

because

the constitution provides that,

I don't know what is it, a natural born citizen.

Anyone born on American soil, whether it's of children of foreign invaders, although maybe there's an exception to that, children of slaves who are not recognized as citizens

are American citizens.

I presume that's where you're going with your position on this that Trump's executive order will get struck down as being unconstitutional.

A federal court has already enjoined it.

Now whether it's right or wrong, we'll get to. So first, let me try to strongman

the Trump argument.

So the professor if you wanna read some good articles on this, read professor John Eastman

who advocates for Trump's position. Stephen Miller does as well. A range of legal scholars have. So I don't want anybody coming coming, out with the impression the media sometimes tries to relay that this is

a, that this is beyond controversy question or debate. It is absolutely not.

The big question is the language subject to the jurisdiction

in the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution.

So it says anybody born in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen.

Question is, what does that second phrase meant meant? We all know what born in The US mean. Mhmm. What is subject to the jurisdiction mean?

Now Eastman and others would argue that subject to the jurisdiction is based on a lock in concept of consent,

which is that citizenship

gives as much as it takes,

in the in its modern form. In other words, you get rights that come with citizenship,

not just obligations.

I'll get to later why that actually matters in terms of interpretation of these provisions.

And then at the time the fourteenth amendment was passed, the entire focus historical focus

was on restoring

was overturning Dred Scott in restoring the right of,

slaves and their descendants to be citizens.

And in particular, it was an argument that a national citizenship

existed independent of

and separate from state citizenship.

What the supreme court decided in Dred Scott

was that states couldn't give citizenship to ex slaves,

or the descendants of slaves.

And that it frankly gave us the civil war was the idiocy of the supreme court of the United

plainer class, busy lining their own pockets.

So there's no so from a historical

perspective, looking at the eastern perspective,

subject to the jurisdiction, the language of that is subject to debate.

So let's go back and look at historical context. If I may interject,

I can imagine,

diplomats,

but maybe that's different because they're if they're born in a in a in a, what's the word for it? A diplomat's office. An embassy. If someone's born in an embassy, they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but are they even technically on American soil?

That that's a separate argument. So Okay. This all goes back to just Solai,

tear jurisdiction based on the soil

versus jurisdiction based on Saint Gral or something like that based on the blood.

So the,

the but so the Eastman argument is

that the Lockean concept is the only thing that legitimates

government

is consent,

and that the American

Revolution was premised and predicated

on that idea

that it's because I consent

to government, the social contract theory, that government has any legitimate

authority over me

or that I have any obligation to it or it has any obligation to me.

And the argument is that that,

so that subject to the jurisdiction is a broad

exclusion

of anyone born in The United States

who for any reason,

is not consenting

to being part of The United States as a citizen or

The US is not consenting to their being,

having any obligations to that individual.

Now as you point out, it's undisputed that certain people were excluded.

One category was anybody who was

excluded from jurisdiction based on their parents being diplomats.

That's diplomatic immunity.

The second,

category more more broadly,

were anybody who was part of an Indian tribe who might be within territory The United States claimed, but was primarily subject

to Indian tribal jurisdiction.

Tribes had various treaties with The United States that governed it, but the tribes did not consider The United States in control of their tribal territory.

And so in in recognition

and respect of that, they excluded

those no. Not all not not all Indians, by the way. Just those Indians were the ones excluded. That's, by the way, where the legal language Indians not taxed comes from. Indians not taxed is referring to a group of Indians outside of US jurisdiction,

for because

by recognition of the reality that they're not taxed. If it was taxed

and it wasn't living on a tribe, tribal reservation

or tribal territory,

then they were subject to US jurisdiction and could be US citizens. So I've seen some misrepresentation

that all native Americans that that's not the case.

The so but the theory that Eastman and others advocate

is at a minimum,

the there there was the the anchor baby problem was not a problem of that generation.

So we don't know

whether they would have interpreted subject to the jurisdiction from an originalist

perspective, as excluding

the sons and daughters of illegal aliens born on US territory.

They argue that subject to the jurisdiction

language logically,

leads to a broader exclusion of anyone

who doesn't fit the lock in consensual model of citizenship

under the social contract theory of interpreting

US constitutional law.

So that's the sort that's the snap. But it gets into much more detail and much more there's arguments about,

I should add one third category. It was undisputed historically

that someone who came in as part of an invading army Mhmm. Was also not a citizen of that country because they're not subject to the jurisdiction

because the invading army is in control,

not the country that previously existed.

So those are the three, you know, foreign diplomats, Indian sub living on tribal reservations, not tax, and people that are part of invading armies. Undisputed

that they're just so lie does not equal,

birthright citizenship.

The question is, does it go further and say that in fact, there has to be some form of consensual proof like the naturalization

process

or

some, or the or by blood

that you could be a US citizen by blood that your one of your parents

was you inherited it as a matter of ancestry.

And that's

another theory of power.

That there's reasons to be worried about going down the blood route, but I'll get to that in a second. But so bay you combine those theories,

and there's many legal, competent, capable legal scholars that support president Trump's announcement that he was not going to recognize citizenship

to those who were born to illegals who had not yet been naturalized in The United States. And if I just to pause you there because a lot of people have this, not the same misconception, but they have the idealized conception that this is, like, you know, illegal immigrants who have been here for years, paying taxes, jobs, yada yada to have families. There's an industry to this. Like, they're they're Alex Jones was talking about it, and I I've I've known about it well.

Chinese,

illegals, Chinese people come. People from China, the People's Republic Of China come when they're pregnant specifically to have babies on American soil.

A a known unknown confirmed Oh, yeah. Element of this. There's people who market it as a business. Let's say we can help you get you set up. We can get you here. We can so you can have your kid here, and then you have US citizenship. And then the secondary problem that concerns a lot of people on the right, especially,

is that the child, once their US citizen is guaranteed a whole bunch of benefits,

that in turn allows their parents to stay here illegally. Mhmm. And not only stay here legally, get US benefits,

get US jobs,

get, the get you a welfare benefits, get health care, get schooling, get food stamps. That's their concern.

So it's a legitimate concern.

Understandable.

Very respectful scholars on that side. Now let me give you the contrary argument.

Historically,

the theory of citizenship, the doctrine of citizenship

never came up never thought of itself as empowering individuals.

Most of our law, Anglo Saxon law of the jurisdiction

comes from wanting power over people.

So it was governments.

And because of that, the legal history of interpreting the word subject to the jurisdiction

were very broad.

They didn't see it. The courts weren't sitting there saying, golly gee. Does this person really have

Why the US Safety Commission wants to ban this baseball bat shaped flashlight? Big retailers already banned this product from their stores.

Rights he can enforce against us.

Almost never. It was, do we have rights we can enforce against him?

Can we take his property? Can we tax him? Can we draft him? Can we do all these things?

So for that historical reason,

the legal interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction

was very broad.

The only it was assumed you were subject to the jurisdiction

unless you fit a narrow exempt group.

Like, okay. We acknowledge if you're here as part of a foreign emissary

that you are not subject to the jurisdiction as part of diplomatic immunity

or the invading army or you're actually part of another community that we have legal control over the borders of, but not within.

Like, Indians, not tax or tribe.

The not, members of tribes and not tax.

So and I can tell you historically, the better argument is all on that side. There is very I mean, Eastman does a fantastic job. Others do as good a job as you can, but I've dug into this issue in great depth. The overwhelming because of that historical phenomenon I just talked about, all the law goes against us. The 1898 Supreme Court decision strongly implies

that the sons and daughters of of of people who are not US citizens, who are Chinese,

were US citizens because they were born on the soil. It's strong. I mean, I get there's ways to interpret and try to extrapolate. Right? It's

just and if you understand the politics of the time, that very conservative

or the the conservative in, like, a corporatist way, Supreme Court, that very establishment oriented Supreme Court,

was all for Chinese immigrants being here,

because it was lining their pockets and their investment in railroad companies, for example, because it was the so called coolies,

the Chinese,

immigrants working those railroads and made those railroads as profitable as they were.

So if you dig into the his if you're a true originalist,

which means you care about what people thought at the time that constitutional amendment was passed,

which means the priority is not on the people who wrote it, but on the people who passed it, which means looking at the votes of and the public opinion that supported it.

Oh, but it

overwhelmingly

suggests that subject to the jurisdiction is a very narrow

exception, not a broad exception. To give you some examples, this came up.

Gypsies, the infamous Gypsies,

present throughout The United States. This came up during the senate debate. People like, the the the Gypsies are not citizens or or their kids are born here. Are they and and and everybody saw the Gypsies,

controversially so, but they see them as this way. Saw them as,

moochers. Saw them as thieves and criminals and whatnot. It's just a very common colloquially assumption. It's where it's where the expression you got gypped comes from. It says someone screwed you out of something, sold you something crappy. It's because they got gypped because they were gypsies. It's an offensive term. Exactly. Exactly. There's another offensive term that a friend of mine once said, and she's like, oh, I wonder if that's offensive. She's like, you know, whenever I try to do a negotiation deal, my dad taught me to try to do them down. And I was like, yes. That could be a fact. You know, be careful. There's there's some people that will take pride in that frame, but there's plenty people that will know.

The but yeah. So that's the history. I'm I'm not greenlighting the history of the this negative history of Gypsy saying it's accurate or anything like that. I think much more complicated history. But it's just to give you an idea. That was the public perception at the time. They debated whether the sun and already Chinese immigrants were here. They could not be US citizens. By the way, they had loyalty to foreign powers. Like, this one theory out there says, if you if you also have loyalty to a foreign power, you can't be US citizen. That makes no sense. Because US has recognized dual and triple citizens forever.

So that's just never been the case. The historical argument is weak from, again, an originalist perspective.

If you wanna eliminate the originalist perspective, then you wanna do a living constitutional

perspective,

then you have a much better argument. But then you're embracing the left's theory of law

and think long and hard about whether you really wanna do that. Well, someone over on Rumble also above average says, can they can they draft you? And although I know you know that you believe the draft is unconstitutional. But if they can draft you, you're subject to the jurisdiction so the child born here can be drafted. Yes. And there's an argument about that, about how that works and how that processes. But, yes, the theories of subject to the jurisdiction is that if you are subject to the king's jurisdiction, they can take your property. They can take your freedom. They can take your liberty. They can take everything.

And that's how they see it. And that's why the law was written the way it was. Now it is true that today, you could make an argument there's been a seismic shift in the perception of citizenship.

That citizenship is no longer about what you owe the state, but what the state owes you.

And in in a participatory

democracy creates a whole different animal because now they can vote and control the government. So when the arguments I had with libertarians who were saying, hey. Look. We shouldn't have any restriction on h one b visas or anything like that. I was like, on immigration because we should have a global labor supply because it's the most affordable, most accessible, best market, free market, etcetera. And, like, the problem is what what happens when the free market comes with a political tax?

Like, all of a sudden, you have to give these people voting rights so they can control you in the future.

You you could recruit a bunch of you could bring in a bunch of people who are socialist at heart. And all of a sudden, in the name of the free market, you bring in all these immigrants, and and all the immigrants suddenly decided to create a socialist government. This actually happened in certain respects around the world over time. So I get there's good argument. Eastman is as good as anybody.

Good historical arguments that from a living constitutional

perspective,

I think if you this is where I get a kick out of the left.

The left is all arguing

original jurisdiction.

We all of a sudden don't want living constitution. Robert, all of a sudden, the left loves sworn statements. Elizabeth Warren relying on sworn statements of perjury, but they don't like it when it's a a verus report of an adverse event from the from the jibby jab. Exactly.

So my own view is that where the court supreme court is likely to rule, because it's ruled this way in the past, because it recognize reflects the broader history,

You're gonna get all the liberals against Trump.

All you need is two you need two of his corporate centrist,

two of the three corporatist

or two or a combination of that and the conservatives.

I think you'll get a couple of conservatives who go with Trump, but I think that's gonna be it. And there's no way is likely to rule that subject to the jurisdiction

includes

those who are born to citizens whose parents were not citizens of The United States unless those now the one caveat component

is Trump is exploring

pursuing an alternative theory that doesn't say birthright that there's never birthright citizenship,

but rather that those who are part of an invading army, the invaders of the Biden administration,

that they're not entitled to it as an invading as an invading army analogy.

And he actually cited that provision of the constitution

for curtailing invasions as part of his authority for this executive order. I think that's an interesting argument.

I don't think it's when the courts are likely to accept at this point because of the legal history.

Because the problem is this, the liberals who believe in a living constitution are never going to go along with Trump on birthright citizenship.

The conservatives

who believe in originalism know that originalism

doesn't support Trump's position when you dig into it. I mean, there's arguments. I'm not saying there's no argument for it. I'm just saying the best arguments really don't. It's very hard to get that. My own view is very simple solution. There is broad public support

for limiting

birthright citizenship

to those whose parents have shown a commitment to be part of The United States at some level. The, you know, their resident visas, they have some legally recognized

basis to be in The US other than as a diplomatic,

entree or as a tribal member.

I think that there's enough support to amend the constitution

to clarify that.

Why do I support article five?

Because I the path to,

illegal immigrant to perform. Because I care about originalism in the constitution. I refuse to abandon it just because I don't like the political and public policy consequences

of the originalist interpretation of the fourteenth amendment. But I'm not going to pretend

that the history under the fourteenth amendment supports my political cause when the best evidence says it doesn't. Well, Robert, the the real good news for Trump is that we now know you can amend the constitution by way of a tweet. So all Trump has to do is tweet out, it is now law of the land and thus is amended. Article what was it? Article 14? Article,

article five is the amendment to amend the constitution.

The fourteenth amendment is the one that provides the citizenship. Yeah. And so there is a good historical argument that the that they didn't consider anything in this scale. I think the best argument is a version of the invasion argument

and the argument that philosophically, we have shifted.

Citizenship is no longer obligation like it was in medieval days where these terminologies

originated,

where the words just so I come from. Yeah. Or or Citizenship is power,

not obligation. As I mean, there's some obligation,

but not as much.

And so I think that that shift

recognizes a shift in perspective, but the best way to respect that shift is to amend the constitution through article five,

not let judicial fiat

amend the constitution. Or or they deem it to be an invasion. They deem illegals, you know, to to be an invading force. And And there's a circumstance where you could do that. I don't want that abused too much because there's risks to saying, okay. I'm just doing my invasion.

The FBI recently announced that they are now advising people use an ad blocker while they're online. So I just found this off of TikTok. Right? And it says

Alright. Come on.

Get back on track in a second.

Everybody's

scrambling for revenue, folks.

No. Actually, the video just crashed.

Oh, did it? Alright.

Alright. I'll have to punch it up on something.

End.

It's towards the tail end of the discussion, but he's getting into this, how he thinks you can amend the pro the constitution

through the fifth amendment to overcome

this particular type situation.

Let me just say while you're fumbling around and doing that, those of you who've been around for a while, you've heard me,

praise

Robert Barnes. And I don't know if you're one of the people that have never gone and listened to their show or familiar with him. But if you didn't, I think you're getting a real good example of why I said what I did about this guy. He is an absolute

legal lawful monster.

K?

And just wherever liberty is challenged,

that's where you're gonna find him. Go go ahead. We'll talk about it more with this over.

Hang hang on just a second.

Alright. I'm trying to figure out what time offset that would have been.

I'm trying to fit I

QOA

Yeah. The rumble video crashed. I have no idea what time offset it was at, so I'm gonna see if I can find it. Twenty try two hours and twenty minutes to see if it's something we've heard.

The loyalty to America and that that should be the condition of citizenship given that it affords and provides as much as it takes away. Let me read this right here. By article five, not by changing the constitution by executive or judicial p o. S j d g says, how much of Trump's push on birthright citizenship is aimed to push the amendment? We just

got that. And this one here, Robert, before the fourteenth was accepted, it was argued by Howard that foreigners and aliens were excluded. C h r one twenty seven r as well. There's two problems there. One, to be honest with you, that's a dishonest interpretation of that. The conservatives have made that argument multiple times. You read the whole record, it doesn't support it. It just doesn't. And I get conservatives want to don't like the consequence currently to the fourteenth amendment. So they want to do a living constitution but don't want to admit they're doing that. So all of a sudden they wanna say, you know whose opinion matters? Only one senators.

Not the rest of the senators, not not the rest of congress, not not the state legislatures, not the American public, not the long legal history of how that doctrine was interpreted. No. No. This one senator because he says a quote that I like. You're engaging in liberal legal jurisdiction.

You're being very selective

about which quotes you take, and you're using them conveniently when they contradict all the language. By the way, what he what does he say in that context? He's talking about a specific subset,

and they're pretending that when he's saying, hey. Look. Don't worry that the sons and daughters of of

foreign emissaries don't get automatic citizenship under this, then the nature of it is such, that they're they're pretending, oh, no. What he really meant was to say all aliens,

all foreigners were all excluded. Well, that's directly contradicted by the rest of the congressional record you're choosing to ignore because you don't like it.

Don't become a liberal because you don't like the outcomes

of an originalist conservative interpretation.

Stick with the originalist conservative interpretation,

and instead, follow the constitution and the founders that said when something's not working,

use article five to fix it. Article five is the tool to fix it, not new found not lying about the history, not being selective about the history, not being a living constitutionalist

because those three steps make you a liberal on the court, not a conservative, not a constitutionalist.

What time is your flight? How much time do we have? Two minutes. Two minutes? Okay. I'll I'll let let's go to the the after party on locals. I'll read the chats and and and answer them as much as I can. We're not gonna cut it that short. Rumble, Robert, what do you have this week?

So, heading back home.

The my mate,

need to go to Philadelphia for a thing or two.

But, otherwise, we'll be the Bourbons will be back, live, throughout the week. So Bourbons with Barnes. You can tell me why I'm wrong. The there's been great arguments made by member of the locals community,

on but I think some arguments better than what Trump has made so far in the birthright citizenship.

And, again, to be absolutely clear, I would agree with amending the constitution to remove that,

the because I have a different interpretation of citizenship more broadly. I don't think governments should be able to grab and steal and everything they want all the time.

So I'm sympathetic to it. I just refuse

to not be an originalist

because the originalist interpretation doesn't give me the public policy outcome I like. I refuse to become a lefty simply because

the originalist interpretation gives me a lefty liking result.

Alright. Get your butts on over, people. Vivabarneslaw.locals.com.

I'm gonna keep Robert for as long as I can hang him in there, and then we're gonna read some of the stuff here. Updating now. Rumble. See you tomorrow. Stay tuned. It's gonna be a big week. So stay tuned. Maybe. Maybe one of these days, I'll get an audience for that guy. I sure hope so.

Maybe. But I think if you were not exposed to Barnes before what you just heard,

you'll understand why I hold him in such high esteem.

Also, in the early part of that, he was in Chattanooga,

which is where he was born and raised.

And,

he he was there for his, one of his sisters. He's got four sisters,

funerals. And this he was going into her background and everything and how

how beloved she was. And she was the one that or the oldest one went out and started working

to feed the rest of the family. Guys, I guess, the mother wasn't around. The dad died.

And,

if you wanna get a little glimpse into Barnes' background and stuff, the at the beginning of this when Viva brings him in at the front, he goes

into that for a bit, and it was, well, almost bring it to your eye, really. It was that sister, I think. Anyway, one of them that was just beloved everywhere she went, everywhere she ever worked. She's a wonderful poet evidently and had a son, and and they're going to take her poems, which have never been published, and do a book and take the funds of that for his college fund.

But he goes into that whole story,

and it just, would give you an insight into Barnes. She was the one that got and kept at Yale

until they gave him a because he couldn't afford to go there, obviously, a a a scholarship of some sort. And then I I think he had problems with them. I don't know exactly the situation,

but he was

you know, you can imagine he stuck out like a sore thumb at Yale with this kind of thinking. And he ended up getting his degree from all places

of the University of Wisconsin,

which is, extremely liberal, and I don't know how he fared through all those years. But, anyway, that's Barnes' background. He,

you might remember the,

oh, the the the case the Snipes, Wesley

Snipes tax

case from years ago.

Remember that? Well, that Barnes and Barnes handled that. He's got his own law firm,

tax firm off of his main law firm.

But

I've just been watching him now since I stumbled on him a few years ago, and and many of you follow him. I know I know a sketch does, and Mark.

The guy's just a freaking monster. You know?

And his recall of all this stuff and knowledge of what's going on week to week in these programs

in the entire law scheme from appellate things or whatever case from wherever that's important.

He's on top of. It's just, he's an amazing guy, and, I

highly recommend. If you like him, wanna hear more, you can find a bunch of them. They've got a local,

site,

vivabarnslaw.locals.com.

It's a subscription site. You can send $10 a month or something. You can have all kind of they do an after show after this show we just heard, and it's over there exclusively for the membership. And they do little things over there. His bourbon with barn

segments, they mentioned he does a segment. It's called bourbon with barns. He's got a a bunch of pre I have a question, Roger. Hold on, Sherry. Let me finish, please. He,

does a thing called,

Very nice. Bourbon with bars. He he

he does a thing called,

damn. Sherry, see, when you interrupt me like that, it throws my what I'm talking about totally off the track. Okay?

Okay.

With Barnes.

He does bourbon with Barnes, and he does another thing over there. And now I can't think of it. But, anyway, all those things are involved in that membership, and you can access it for your member.

Hey. Hell of a guy. You can find him there, and,

he's all over the place. He's with Alex a lot. He's helped Alex as in served as his lawyer. He's helped Trump with the Georgia situation in the last election. He's just a a hell of a lawyer,

and does a lot of this pro bono. He's a guy that just got Amos Miller off up there in Pennsylvania. Totally pro bono.

Hell of a guy. Yes, Sherry. What was your question?

I apologize,

Roger. Didn't mean to interrupt your train of thought.

But didn't West That's what happened. That's what happens to me because I don't work off notes or anything. And when when somebody and you're on I'm explaining something like that, that's what it does to my mind. That's why I wanted to that bring that up because it throws me totally off track. Go ahead.

I will try not to do that anymore.

But didn't Wesley Snipes

do some jail time?

I don't remember all the exact

specifications

of it, but Barnes handled the case. Okay?

He Yeah. He did jail time. I could

And that's dealing with IRS. And, man, would I love to get an audience with this guy and sit down and say, look what's really happening. Because he in one of his shows

on Sunday night, they do a three hour show on Sunday evenings. They start usually in about six,

five, and go to eight, nine, something like that. You can catch it live or you can get it taped. Okay? And then

and then they have that extra little tail end segment

where they take about three or four or five juicy cases

and discuss them for just the members of the locals community, which I understand. Good for them.

Hell of a gambler. He's really involved in gambling. He's got

gambling sites, and he, on all all these political outcomes or anything in the world you wanna gamble on, you go there and gamble on that,

and a hell of a guy. So,

as for Praise and Barnes, I'll get that out of my system in a second. He just you know, when somebody comes along you really admire?

Well, yeah, I really admire Robert Barnes. K? So if you wanna tap into that, that's where you can get a hold of him. Now

it was a very in-depth presentation.

And if you wanna hear that again, because these threw a lot of information out there in a very short period of time, you can go back and get it from last night's episode. It starts at about eight minutes after 02:08

towards the tail end of the program.

Did anyone have anything particularly you want to comment on that you already did during it?

Alright. Who's that, Samuel?

Okay. Is that Samuel?

Oh, okay. What's what's your net? What picker net are you gonna pick?

Well, why doesn't he bring up that

the second election of Lincoln was illegal

along with the fourteenth amendment instead of argue about a clause in the fourteenth amendment?

I have no ideas to all that. He clean he he he he went under the assumption that it was all legitimately ratified, which there's a lot of questions about that.

If you, wanna find out about that, you can go back to the congressional record, And there was a congressman named Rarick,

r a r I c k.

I think it must have been back in the sixties, who was obviously a John Birch, a member

who did a long thing in the congressional record about the fourteenth amendment not being,

not being,

ratified.

And when they adjourned, they adjourn,

which

has a specific legal meaning, and I can't remember it right off the top of my head. But that they have an

it was that they have an unsigneditis.

And so the all of it's illegal since that time. So, you know, you can ask a whole bunch of those questions, Samuel. Well, they they they they created West Virginia

and Nevada in order to get him elected.

Well, maybe they Nevada, they didn't I don't know if they created it. They certainly did West Virginia. Okay?

Well, the number of people in Nevada weren't enough to have it come in as a state.

The telegraph was new, and the federal government

spent $60,000

at the time

because the timing was

such that to get the document there, it wouldn't make it by land. So they telegraphed the whole damn thing.

The whole thing was a a Well, I mean,

there's there's all kind of chicanery in our history along that time.

What about right in that same time frame, the crime of '73

went through changing one word in the amendment from the time it was passed to the time it was entered in the books, took silver out of the circulating medium.

And we were had the biggest load of silver, I think, still

discovered in the whole world, the Comstock load right out over there on the other side of the mountains from where you are, Samuel.

Yeah. And if you go back to whether it's land or whether it's people, that goes right back to Patrick Henry arguing that at the beginning they changed

to we the state

to we the people

and he thought that just gave the federal government that much more power.

Alright. Well, you know,

what we're really discussing is birthright citizenship that's on the table here and how it applies to us and how that amendment is structured. You'll notice both of them, Levin and Barnes,

both

centered on a bit of conversation on the middle phrase and subject

to the jurisdiction thereof.

They did mention Indians not taxed. Okay? But if you'll remember the case that they're missing there is Elk v Wilkins.

And that was about an Indian,

and it was about the fourteenth amendment directly.

And that was right in the sweet spot. I believe that was 1878.

And, I'm I'm shocked that neither one of them brought this up. Okay? Really. But that's the only place to my knowledge that phrase has been judicially

examined

by a high court here at the Supreme Court. And what it said is

subject to the political

jurisdiction.

And that was repeated

in US versus long term arc that he did mention of briefly. Although he didn't talk about the descent where it says plain as day. It's the feudal system.

Okay? But anyway, that's where that came from and that's the that's never been revisited.

So this court case as this goes up, maybe the first time in, shit, a hundred and fifty years it's been revisited.

Yes. Was that you, Julie?

Yeah.

Could you please comment on it appears that Mark Levin and,

Barnes do not agree

what subject to the jurisdiction means because Barnes,

mentioned lock the Lockean

concept, and he thinks it's based on consent, whereas Mark Levin thinks it's based on total allegiance, and you can only have allegiance to one, whereas,

it appears that Barnes,

disagreed with that.

I don't I'm a I I can address the first part of of your deal of your question.

And and, yeah, they both brought it up and neither one of them well, Barnes came the closest

because he calls it as you,

correctly identified it, the Lockettian

concept there of government by contract.

He didn't expand on that. He just mentions it. The average person out there don't know what the hell he's talking about, honestly,

but it it's government by contract. Okay, that's what we're in.

It has to be to be able to apply all this Babylonian merchant code. You gotta have a contract, don't you? Yes. Yep. Okay?

And and so he doesn't put together,

I'm asking you, are you a fourteenth amendment citizen,

and are you a fourteenth amendment citizen again no matter what state you're in and sign something?

That's what Barnes he didn't he didn't dig him down one or two more layers.

Okay? And I was gonna say a minute ago, I mean, while this is in my mind, he earlier in the show,

I've mentioned it on here before

and something came out. It was when the Supreme Court decisions came down last year and and, dealing with, oh, the administrative

state and all that stuff. And there was another one dealing with it, and he said,

he he, kinda beamed. You know, you see him on camera there. He's got a a little beam on his face, and he said the fourteenth amendment was the great equalizer.

And see, he's right, but he doesn't know what it equalized,

And he doesn't really realize how it operates or what's going on.

Yeah. It made it so to that point. Okay?

Is is consent and allegiance

the same thing are you? Sherry, please let me finish with Julie.

Yeah. Julie?

What

could you please repeat that could you please repeat that case, the the court case in that in 1878

that had, where you were talking about? I will.

If I had you here, I'd spank you. Okay? Elk v Wilkins.

Elk v Wilkins. Elk v Wilkins. Elk was obviously an Indian.

It was right after the fourteenth amendment had been passed.

He was out in Nebraska somewhere in the in the Midwest there. It was still Indian territory, and he was on the reservation.

And so he went to register to vote, and the registrar was Wilkins.

And Wilkins said, you can't register to vote in the fourteenth amendment. You're an Indian. Probably thinking you're not black. You're not like everybody else imputed in that. And so he goes back to the reservation. Election day comes. He comes off the reservation. He goes to the polls. Well, Wilkins at the polls, and he won't let him vote. And that's the origins of that, and it came back and that the the real importance of that case is a, well, he's telling Elk he's sovereign, isn't he?

Yep.

Okay. And and and it comes back and they pull that phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and examine that key phrase in that key statement and no other supreme court case, to my knowledge, has ever revisited

it. That's the importance of what we're dealing with here. The importance of that phrase that we know and understand and the importance of this situation that's gonna move it to the highest court in the land It's gonna be revisited again. Unfortunately,

Barnes may be right. There's too many liberals up there.

So regardless,

that is

subject to the political

jurisdiction.

It was repeated and pulled out of Elk and repeated in Wonkim Ark. It's requoted in there. Okay?

But, it's the only time the court has visited it and analyzed it to my knowledge.

K? And I've I've showed that to lawyers who go, I've been looking for that for, you know? So that's a real key little phrase, and this situation has brought it to the forefront.

And as I was saying the other day, as this situation and discussion

heats up,

maybe somebody on the fringes will go, you need to go talk to this sales guy.

Okay? So cross your fingers and say a prayer. It's open a door for us potentially.

Hey, Roger. Okay.

Yeah. You're welcome.

Very astute to ask that question. Yes, Paul?

I disagree with him on one point.

I don't think

that the constitution needs to be amended.

I think the constitution needs to go back to what it was before He doesn't before it was bastardized.

It it can. That's what we do, but he doesn't understand that yet.

Right. But but I do believe

that slavery wasn't wrong just because the government said it was wrong. Slavery was abhorrent to God. It was a violation of human rights.

It was an absolute

travesty. It was despicable,

and it was

a result of narrow minded individuals

that did not see

blacks,

Irishmen,

whoever

as humans.

They didn't see them as creations of God. They saw them as

animals, lesser beings. A lot of people thought it was wrong. That's how they view all of us.

Yeah. But but that was wrong. It was wrong. It was it was abhorrent to god. And Not

and without without the thirteenth amendment without the thirteenth amendment, every damn person that owned slaves

should have been strung up for crimes against humanity.

That would have fixed it. Moral or illegal in the Talmud, my friend. It says they have the right to do that over everybody.

And if you ever I'll get you a second, Larry. If you get back to, like, David Duke's history of Jewish slavery,

they have been the slave masters

since Babylon.

One Jew has controlled all the slavery in Europe. I can't remember that. The English

gave wanted to promote this black slave triangle trade, and they would license the Jews to do it. And that's why they own 90% of the ships. Almost all the captains on those slave ships for two hundred years were Jewish. Almost all the crew was Jewish. And even the slave markets closed on Jewish holidays

because both in the South America and North America because there weren't enough buyers and sellers to participate

to run a market.

Larry.

Yeah. Paul's painting with a broad brush.

Only involuntary

servitude is unlawful.

Voluntary servitude obviously is okay

because both parties are okay with it. And with the there's one exception, of course, the involuntary

servitude of being put in prison because you were, convicted of a crime.

And the second thing is

the congressional record that you're referring to is 06/13/1967.

And Mr.

Rearick was speaking,

and he said, I asked to include in the record, following my remarks, House concurrent resolution

two zero eight of the Louisiana Legislature

urging this Congress

to declare the fourteenth Amendment illegal.

Also, I include in the record

an informative

and well

annotated treaties

on

the illegality of the fourteenth amendment, the play toy of our successionist judges,

which has been prepared by judge Leander h Perez of Louisiana.

That is. And he goes on to say, if I could read, like, two or three sentences,

whereas the purported fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution

was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements of The United States constitution

because 11 states of the union were deprived of their equal suffrage

to the Senate

in violation of Article five

when 11 Southern states, including Louisiana,

were excluded

from deliberation

and decision in the adoption of the joint resolution

proposing

said fourteenth Amendment.

Said resolution was not presented to the President of The United States

in order that the same should take effect

as required by Article one, Section seven.

The proposed amendment was not ratified by three fourths of the states,

but to the contrary, 15 states of the then 37 states

of the union rejected the proposed fourteenth amendment

between the dates of its submission to the states

by the Secretary of State on 06/16/1866

and 03/24/1868,

almost done, thereby nullifying such resolution

and making it impossible for ratification

by the constitutionally

required three fourths

of such states.

And that could be found in the congressional record.

Pardon me?

That could be found, like I said, in the congressional record,

06/13/1967.

It's a PDF.

And if you scroll down in the PDF to pages one zero five to one ten,

those pages will be labeled

one five six four one

to one

five,

one six four

six four. You know? Paul, we should get that put that on the website back there with some of that historic stuff. It's a very, very relevant speech.

I would love to know where what part what district Louisiana

Reerick was from.

And never The other thing, Roger, is there were Northern states in there as well as the Southern states Well, I told that were that were Well, listen.

Yes. And that's what I was go I've been trying to get to. Both or I believe Oregon was a state back then.

And certainly New Jersey who had originally voted for it went back and rescinded their vote, and they wouldn't recognize their rescission.

That's another part of it. Okay? For those of you who don't know, there's the thirteenth amendment now

becomes even more critical, doesn't it? That would did you hear either

Barnes or Levin

say, well, who is the thirteenth amendment written for? There was no fourteenth amendment yet for six months.

Who were those people that all amendments written for them? Well, they're the state citizens.

Their jurisdictions

at the end, leaving out voluntary servitude by omission,

making it legal and lawful. The thirteenth amendment's the setup amendment.

That's they're gonna cast a broadcast net over the whole country and get you all under their damn thumb.

That's what's happened.

Okay? So they went in and passed. They let the southern legislators

back into congress to vote on the thirteenth.

And then they they voted on it. That's why it's constitutional.

You don't hear Roerich talking about the thirteenth amendment

because they let them back in because here's this big glowing

softball they're throwing over the plate. Okay? And they come back in and vote on it. When they leave,

they bring up the fourteenth amendment. Six months later, in the interim,

a lot of the Southern states, as as Larry said, were in,

as to this issue, we're in revolt.

Still, the fourteenth amendment and they didn't participate.

So the Congress

kicked them out of the union.

They just fought this bloody war to try and separate,

and they didn't want them to separate to the tune of 600,000

men dead. But then they kick them out unless they've ratified the fourteenth amendment.

That's what all the confusion.

Hold on, Samuel. That's what all this is about. And then they ramroaded it through there. It was introduced by a senator

who was a railroad lawyer,

who was running all the railroads.

You when you really look at this and understand it, you can

strongly argue

that the civil war was started to get these two amendments

into the constitution

so they could control the world with it eighty years later because they knew exactly what they were doing. Yes, Samuel.

Oh, there's there's so much going on this time of the the country.

First off, where's the old thirteenth amendment?

Nobody Right? Nobody talks about it. It's just gone. It was vamoosed.

Even though it's in law books from the time and in the constitution is the thirteenth amendment. I don't think even at that time, they'd put something in there, a part of the constitution, and leave it in a law book if it hadn't been ratified.

That's absurd.

There's a guy that's been pushing the reinstitution

of the thirteenth amendment. Yeah. I know. Well, I good luck. Go go ahead, Samuel.

And then there's the

any

any new amendment to the constitution

will still be an equity.

The only in law

amendments

are the ones

the original firsthand, the Bill of Rights.

That's it. That's never going to change.

And all these amendments are

just

democracy,

51%

makes it so instead of the individual being protected as it is in the first half.

Okay. That's fine. Okay. Good, Samuel. I agree. What's I'm sorry. Oh,

hold on. Let me get Marka. Go ahead, Marka.

Hey, Roger. I just wanted to share something that I saw on that document

for the fourteenth amendment.

They're adding,

mister Rarek as a, speaker.

But what was funny is that

he they meant they say

he is arrogantly

ignoring clear cut expressions

in the constitution of The United States.

The declared intent of its drafters

now now withstanding are unelected federal judges read out pro provisions of the constitution of The United States

by adopting the fuzzy haze of the fourteenth amendment

to legislate their personal ideas,

prejudice, theories, guilt, school complexes,

aims, and whims.

So Oh, if they they

kinda made a fun of him, but he did point out, you know, that it was unqualified.

Well, hey. You're out talking to people about this. They're probably making fun of you too

Right. Exactly. Still.

Okay? Exactly.

Yeah. So,

the, now who was the guy? Larry, was that you trying to get in? Oh, Sketch.

Sketch. I wanted to address two, comments by the,

Sherry and

Samuel. Sherry,

Leslie

Snipes.

Robert Barnes

was his his lawyer, and he mentioned

that,

he mentioned on his show that,

the,

juries,

the jury of that,

they

they pulled him afterwards, and they said he was innocent.

But

because of the jury instruction by the judge, they couldn't

rule him innocent. Hell, and and what is that? For the audience, there's new people. What is that? That you're talking about an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association,

Fiji. Alright. Fiji. And and what they've done as they've switched this over to a federalized

government hold on just a second. As they've switched this over to a federalized government,

they've changed the way the judges instruct a jury

Before,

the jury decides the law and the facts.

Now they decide the facts, and the judge gives you the law that you can work within.

That's the difference.

Okay? It's called,

jury annulment or

Nullification. Anyway,

nullification.

The fact that you as one person, see, none of our people, I understand why, you get a jury summons. You don't wanna be involved in a jury trial. You gotta leave what you're doing. You go up there. They pay you some pittance. You gotta do all this. But you see, that's the importance of one person in a jury trial is you can throw a a hitch in their entire giddy up.

Because originally

that meant that if somebody was being tried, you were on the jury

and your thought pattern was, if they can do that for him and I vote that right, they can then do it on me, and I don't want them to. That's the basis of it. K? Yep. Yep. And and I wanted to address

yep. And I wanted to address,

Samuel,

mentioned that why didn't Barnes bring up this? Well, last week, it did bring up

the National Archives Act and that the archivist,

the legislators,

the house, and the senate

gave the archivist

the power to if there's any controversy

about an amendment being,

ratified,

that he was the main decider.

He was the dictator

on that decision. Check and and there's no check and balance on that. My decision. Yeah. Of course.

It did. Alright. Yeah. Alright. Yeah. And Oregon Go ahead. Oregon was created in 1940

1848.

Okay.

Alright, Bruce. Alright, Bruce.

I'm gonna get Bruce. Yes, sir. Please, Bruce.

Alright.

Why don't we talk about the article of the confederation, which state had its own country?

Yes.

Article of the confederation

honored each state as their own country,

which we are still today.

Correct. The morning, but I'm the truth.

It's veneered over. It's still sitting there. They can't get rid of it. They can only veneer over this stuff. That's why the articles of Confederation

are in the behind the front cover in volume one of the statutes at large.

It's innocent law books. Duh. I think it must be legal and lawful or lawful at least.

It's just been veneered over Yep. And just what they do. Every issue that they move on that they move forward on, all they do is pull some trick and don't look over there, look over here. And while you're looking over there, they're veneering over it. Go ahead, Bruce. Each

state has their own rights,

their own constitution,

and they had one vote

on the

nation's side.

Only one vote per state. They could have all the people they wanted to have up there

on population,

but one state

had one vote.

And and the state, through the people or through the legislature, appointed the senators

who were their extension of their state country government

up there into DC.

That's why they had to do the seventeenth amendment and cut that off.

Well, there's another avenue

too.

If the local,

a town, small town, a county,

or had their representative go to the state house to represent them

and what they wanted,

the little town or county or whatever

sent somebody to to be their representative.

If he didn't do what they wanted him to do, they'd recall him.

Well, that's the senator was If he went to Washington

Yep.

If he if he went all the way up to,

Pennsylvania

and,

represented

not what they wanted locally,

they can recall him then too, Not the state. Yeah. Hitting town. Yeah.

That's your power.

And the before the seventeenth, you could do the same thing with the senator. You could recall his ass. So,

naturally,

they had to get rid of that. Okay. We're getting down to a few minutes left in the show.

Somebody wanna say something that had an opportunity.

I'm No. I don't know. I would just like to weigh in on

Okay. Go ahead, Paul. I would just like to weigh in on painting with a broad brush.

I don't know. I I think it might be Larry that's painting with a broad brush if he's equating

voluntary servitude,

involuntary

servitude, and slavery, and throwing them all in the same bucket. Voluntary servitude is just business.

It's just doing business.

Involuntary servitude and slavery are the same. It well, it's doing business too.

And then guess what guess what else? I didn't say this. It's also, by the way, the most profitable business in the history of the world. Who who is trying to say something? That was John. I just need to let you know the the link for, Joby Weeks with the $22,200,000,000

lawsuit against the federal government over Bitcoin.

Yeah.

The link doesn't work, but he has a website that does. Just go to Joby,

j 0 b y,

Weeks, w

e e k s Com. Joby Weeks Com.

And he reads an affidavit

that explains the whole situation. And I tell you what, with with with,

Trump's

love growing love of Bitcoin,

man, let's get that thing through.

That would be,

well, man, we owned the mining companies

in that. You not only got the coins, but you own the the you bought mining shares.

And I wonder

how many of those shares in all these years, what that would mount up to. Hell, I had almost a full Bitcoin in my back office they stole, bastards.

So we'll see. I hope that comes through, John. Maybe the climate for it too. That's good news. Yeah. Well, it's about a twenty minute affidavit, so I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. But Right. The link that's published out there doesn't work. You just go to his website, and that's the whole website's about it. Jobyweeks.com.

Yep.

Hell, man. I had over $50,000

worth of mining chairs in that thing. I can't even imagine what those over how many years has this been? Four, five, something like that? Five years. Five years. Would be mount up to. But,

needless to say, I might go buy me a house up on the hill.

Yes. He was trying to say something. That's not I

just wanted to mention that Barnes did talk about the, Bitcoin Jesus and that case of law Oh, yeah. And Roger Bears too. Yeah.

Roger Bares. Yeah. And

if if by any chance

the law fair goes through and he gets convicted, that'll have some implication for national Yeah. You know you know what? If they convict him, I tell you Trump will pardon him.

You got that? Or you or you want some,

accompanying evidence? Well, they gave a pardon to Ross Ulbricht, yeah, in all this too. He didn't get much attention.

Do you know who he was, Sketch?

Yeah. Yeah. He was a Silk Road, founder. He's a guy that's at the Silk Road. And they had a hard on for him before that because he had been selling they came after him and convicted him on selling fireworks through the mail.

So it was real flimsy from the start and then they got on. He went on to Silk Road, I guess, after he got out and whatever. But it's quite an interesting story.

And that's where the feds went in and just

confiscated, you know. There's no telling that it's the federal government's large largest holder of Bitcoin in the world. And it's because all these confiscations are minute much of it.

K? Yeah. And my question is

I have one question about,

Ross,

the, Silk Road guy. He had that Bitcoin. How did they get his his keys? I guess they hacked his his secure

computer

in order to get those keys.

I have no idea, Sketch. Don't know. I do. I can tell you.

They threaten they they threaten your life and all your stuff.

There's an actual,

article right now out there about one of these guys that was,

set up by the government,

and they list all the charges they and the things they were gonna do to him if he didn't surrender the keys. Right.

Yep. It's entrapment.

Okay. So, where else can we go? That.

We we get back to if we can't,

okay.

Already have the key.

And, they only

need your consent

that that's where they,

you know, threaten you.

But they already have it.

But they need your consent.

So you give them Well, I mean under it. What? Oh, are you talking about your keys to your your Bitcoin wallet?

Correct. That's what I'm saying. They all Alright. Keys drop off. I mentioned Ross Ulbricht

because maybe the environment would be good for this other decision. I'd rather keep the discussion to this birthright citizenship issue we've been on for the entire program, please. So if anybody else has got any observations

pardon me?

I

yield, Roger.

Roger.

Roger? Okay. Yes.

Yeah. I just had one last I just had one last question about the,

fourteenth Amendment or or the discussion.

You had said that,

subject to the jurisdiction there is is definitely,

a contract, but then,

Robert Barnes No. Said it was Robert

Barnes said it was a social contract. Are those two things that, those two things that's changeable?

No. It's just it's not it's more than a social contract. It's a contract. He just doesn't understand what's on the front end is the fourteenth amendment that so the feudal system is involved underneath it and that that is what underpinning is the contract. Now if you don't believe me,

I would say, you do you know who,

Bill Clinton's favorite professor at Georgetown was, Julie?

I can't remember, but I remember reading it. He credits him him that night.

He credited him in that night. He was

inaugurated. Okay?

Gerald Quigley.

Thank you, Gerald Quigley.

And Carol Quigley was a blue blood and a member of the troop, the gang,

and the CFR.

And they allowed him in

to the records unlimited

access to their records for two years, and that book came out of that. Okay?

And in that book, he makes this statement

that the world's financial leaders

met on a regular basis in private meetings

and constructed

the world's financial system

in a feudalist

fashion.

Now I dare say

that you cannot have a feudalist fashion financial system without serfs.

And David Rockefeller openly admitted that he was working against the interest of The United States.

Yeah. Now now Quigley's deal was

he wouldn't he's in favor of what they're doing,

but he was not in favor of them doing it in secret. He wanted them to do it in public. Well,

as dumb as most of the people are in condition, they could probably gotten away with it in public.

K?

So, Roger, what's the difference between contract and a social contract then, if I might ask? Well, a social contract just be something everybody agrees on. I don't know about the formality of it, but the contract you're in is a specific contract. It's just different. It's one nobody's ever heard of. It's a silent

generational

contract

that runs generationally

from the feudal system. There's another reason they wanted this to be the feudal system so they could utilize this. Then they don't have to remember,

they don't think like we think.

We don't want you don't wanna go out and enslave everybody, do you, Julie?

You don't wanna

drink you don't wanna drink blood,

from some murdered child who they've absolutely

gotten

freaked out so you can get all that adrenal comb in his blood. You don't do that, do you?

That's disgusting.

Okay. So that's my point. We look at this and try and impute the way we think into analyzing it and you can't do that. They don't think like we do.

K? And their deal here is, well, we get this here. Hidden underneath it is this birthright citizenship thing is this little feudal system we wanna bring into operation. Oh, I don't know. Seventy, eighty years from now. So we do that. We get control of the money. We go in and do the roaring twenties. Why were they the roaring twenties? Because they had the credit tap open. Just like the nineties was the roaring nineties

through through the Internet revolution.

Same type thing. They do the roaring twenties, and they shut the credit down. And that puts everybody into a destitute panic situation,

but the bankruptcy

didn't have anything to do with that. It it might have had some

some small things,

but not a large part because it was in the bond market,

which they totally control, all of them, really, but certainly the bond market.

And so they bankrupted the country in the bond market.

Curious to note that ten years earlier in 2021,

they had put in a law on the federal birth certificate,

and they passed a federal birth certificate about twelve years before that.

So that when they got bankrupt, United States Of America bonds,

that they could start issuing

new United States bonds

backed by at least twelve years of birth certificates

as collateral and other collateral and other commercial paper. So he's they they prepared for this. And there's there's not no question about it. K? So,

anyway,

that's what Barnes and those folks

don't know and are not figuring in to what they're looking at and dealing with.

Period. Roger. Okay? Roger.

Thank you, Roger. Alright. Hold on. Oh, hold on, John.

If they do away with the birthright, is it a law or a statute or what is birthright law. They're not don't. Don't. They're not gonna do away with it. It's not for doing away with. It's for not allowing this invasion of illegals

to take advantage of it. There's already been the reason that,

federal court in Washington state,

enjoined it or stopped it is because there's already almost 300 babies that are affected by it.

Okay. 50,000.

It's not just everybody.

It's just for these people. And

ambassadors,

invading armies,

Indians not taxed. Barnes went over that very specifically.

This is something that and I think and I think Trump's got a good point here. If they wanna use the invading armies, that's exactly what it was or what it is. Now what's your comment, Joan?

Oh, okay. So then the the fourteenth amend fourteenth,

art, article

or amendment, whatever it is,

will stay in place

for Well, yeah. It just won't apply to these people.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Alright. He was trying to ask some Yeah. Been trying to get in here. Okay. Bori, what you got?

Hey, Dreyer. I just have a question.

And then

the fourteenth amendment is no not going to apply to the Anka Babies anymore, but to all the other people, yes?

I I don't know. Well,

I don't know. Well, it can't be retroactive

that they take it away. They may try and apply it that way as we go forward.

But as Barnes was saying, the interpretation

of US versus

Wong Kim Ark

would be that that they would not get rid of them. It would just be these select people that are considered, quote, unquote, an army that's invaded us over the last four to five years.

That but to my understanding Thank you, sir. I mean, you know, you can only read so much into this, and you don't know how all these actors are gonna play off of it. So, but it's a a hell of a a positive situation for us

because this essential part of what we do and what we're trying to accomplish

is absolutely

integral

in it. But you hadn't heard either expert mention the feudal system, have you?

You heard him talk about Je Soleil.

You heard him talk about blood lineage heritage. You heard him talk about all that. They They didn't uncover that one layer further.

And that we can all thank

John Benson for, folks.

If it would not have been for John Benson,

nobody would know this.

Or myself. Can I ask something more credit?

I'll take a little credit there. Yeah. Mark, was that you, Marka? Quick. Because we're about off the air here. I think,

okay. Because I was gonna say, I wonder I think Trump knows about the common law cases.

And,

you know, if we do start sending notices or lawful legal notices, letting them know that we are aware and here

and a different,

citizenship status,

then I wonder if things will kinda help him

I install Will help him? Will help any of them. None of them up there know this that we're talking about. So that's why we'll put in the in the front end of the policy of the procedures.

Once you send it to the secretary of state, you copy. Right. White

House, FBI,

DOJ,

bam. I think And maybe even treasury.

Maybe even the secretary of the treasury.

Yes? What, Marco?

They know.

They know they know there's a difference political status that's not Well, some of them do.

This the damn secretary of the treasury, damn sure that he knows or should know. Okay? But we'll see. And listen, if you've got some additional

conversation for this,

you know, in the audience here, hold it. We can revisit it tomorrow, but it's been a very full day of excellent information

from, quote, unquote, experts,

on our side, both of them conservative,

on these key issues. And what it should show all of you

is how little they know or understand.

Now Roger. Crucial

crucial

operating

points of this.

That's We're almost off the air. I gotta I got one point to make before we go off the air. If they're talking about messing with the fourteenth amendment, history has proven

that nothing that they do can be trusted to be good for us. Nothing.

Historically, it's always been bad. Maybe they do know about the futile link in the fourteenth amendment,

and they are messing with the fourteenth amendment to remove

that link.

Cautiously optimistic

and always watch what they do.

Barnes and Lebanon don't know about it or they'd have brought it up. K? They hinted at it. They they kinda see it, but they don't understand the mechanism

of how it's invoked.

That, yeah, all you have to do it's the feudal system. It has to be involuntary

servitude. And if you've done it with fraud, all you do is alert the person you're in contract with and you're out. Not only because it's your decision, but because there's fraud in there and fraud vitiates

any contracts,

ab initio from the beginning.

Maybe I'm a cynic. I just don't trust him.

Well, they they

go trust him for what? To do what?

They they honor those affidavits. Have you heard anybody come on here and say it was dishonored?

No. No. But I don't trust anything that they do even Well, you should even if it's supposed to be good Yeah. Yeah. It always turns out being bad. Okay. Well, I I'm not telling you not to be suspicious as the son of a bitches. You've got every Well, I'm a cynic.

Okay.

Yeah. I if you've got any other discussion, let's hold it till tomorrow, please, because we're off of the the main feeds, and,

I'd rather do it that way if we could. But does anybody have any questions right now?

Sure. I just wanted to share that, Gary often reminds everybody to read the fourteenth complete

fourteenth amendment to understand it. And what we shared today, we should go over that too so we know that the history and what was documented.

You know, Merca, in the whole history of me doing this all these years, I've never worked off anything but that first sentence. Because realistically,

the rest of the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply to me. When it says you can't question the national debt, that doesn't apply to us anymore. That's only the fourteenth amendment people. All the rest of that crap. I agree. You wanna read it, go ahead. I agree. It's a lengthy amendment, but we've never dealt with anything on this project other than the first sentence. Because after that, we're excluded.

Right. I agree with that.

Roger.

Hey, Roger.

Yes. Alright. Larry first. Can

oh.

Alright. Go ahead, Joan.

National sorry, Larry. Nationals can question the national debt.

That's what I just said.

That doesn't apply to us.

That I That's what the tax Thank you. That's what the tax paragraph is in there on the affidavit

for.

That is The way they're gonna extract it is through the IRS.

Sorry, IRS. This is me over here. These are your regulations.

And I'm not I I I'm not gonna pay my fair share, you slave and murder and lion thieving piece of crap. Okay? And have they objected?

In all these years, have they objected?

No. No.

Okay. There's your answer. Well, was it Larry?

Yeah. Gary also,

was

encouraging us,

sometime ago, he came on the show, and he was encouraging us that whenever we're dealing with a court case,

we should always file into and I know you teach us to stay out of court, but for those that get caught up in it for whatever reason,

he said that you should

file a copy of the congressional record like I just read from,

that the fourteenth amendment was not lawfully ratified,

or at least that's the going theory, which we know to be true,

and, include that into into the, into the court case records on the docket.

And

I actually did that, helping a student with the IRS,

and,

we,

took those five pages.

And, it was and I mislabeled it before. It was

one five six four one to one five six four six.

That's the way they they labeled the actual pages in the congressional record.

And, you could make a copy of those and highlight certain sections

and include that in your court case.

And, the other thing is,

what was what I missed it because I had a call coming in. What was it that, Paul is afraid of? He he doesn't trust something or something

to that nature? Yeah.

I'm a cynic. I don't trust anything that they are doing even if it's supposed to be good for us, not to bite us in the ass. If they mess with the fourteenth amendment,

I have no idea what they're gonna do to it, but they might actually wind up removing from it the very hook that we're using to get out of the system.

Now they Maybe they will change the and to an r. System would go away. Paul, if that happened, the whole system's gone. They've got to have this in there. It's essential. It's their power.

Because this is where they derive the financial power from.

But what if they do

go in, mess with the fourteenth amendment,

and change the and to an r? No. Well, no. They they can't do that.

They know that because of our previous amendments written for the r or for the and nots. This is and subject and and not subject. Well, that's the thirteenth amendment. They're gonna go in and get rid of that too?

No. They're just gonna change the way it's applied.

Oh. K?

I just don't trust anything they do. Sorry. I'm a cynic. Okay. We okay. Yes. Who is Roger in there?

This is Sketch, and I just want I I wanted to say that,

once I saw that he was talking about Anne,

the jurisdiction

thereof, I was like, oh, yeah. Let's listen to this. And,

so, you know, he he touched on consent a lot, but he just doesn't know how we consent

his consent. Well, he doesn't know. He thinks by voting or or whatever, but, you know, marking on on, government form, yes. I'm a US citizen. I don't think he he gets that one right there. He doesn't get it at all. Okay? He doesn't get that that's the accepting of a contract.

He doesn't understand the rest of this. He

clearly doesn't have a he understands it, but he only understands it from one side, do his comment.

The great fourteenth amendment was the great level or whatever he said. Okay? And he's right. It was. Equalizer. He doesn't understand

that they leveled you all into the federal slavery position

and not the position of what had to be the state citizen in the thirteenth amendment, the previous amendment.

Yep.

Hey, Larry. If you can send me that congressional record, I'd appreciate it.

Yeah. We'll put that up as valuable information. And okay. Well, we could continue this tomorrow.

I'm gonna, Roger. John, thank you for sticking around, by the way. Yeah. You bet. Yeah. Yes, Larry.

The the quote is it's the great equalizer. You've always said that in the past. Right. Right. Exactly. Send you a copy.

I could send you a copy of the congressional record.

The the original credit goes to Natasha. She's the one that found it in some Heinz

online or whatever, and I couldn't get access to it.

Yeah. Yeah. I couldn't get access to it. So I actually searched it I searched for it online in the actual US House or whatever website, and I found a copy there. So but I I can email you a copy, Paul. Yep. Yeah. And Natasha heard us talking about it and went and searched it up. But,

yep. So,

anyway, keep in mind, if you're gonna file that in court papers, if they if they go and look at it, they're gonna find that negative stuff that other people have said about it that evidently are in there too. So but whatever you wanna do, it's okay with me. I think you'll if you if I can keep your ass out of court, I guarantee you, you may not appreciate it, but you'll thank me at some point.

So,

alright. Who, anybody else, please?

Roger.

Yes.

Yeah. This is Paul. I'm from Kentucky. I've heard you on

another call on Tuesdays as a guest speaker.

And, anyways, I got the information. I've been on a couple of these calls,

during the week now, and I've really enjoyed them.

I'm faced with some civil lawsuit

litigations,

and

I don't know where to turn. I don't know a lot of people who know how to,

win

at a civil lawsuit.

It's got a lot of validity to it, a lot of evidence, But,

the courts and and I agree with your statement about

if you can keep it out of the court.

It's much better, and I wish I had known that when I filed these four years ago.

However,

I I'm already in the system. I don't know if there's a way out of it.

But,

the cases are very convoluted. I don't need to discuss them on the call right now. But I would like to see, is there a way that I can contact you or con is there somebody you could refer me to? Because I I hear a lot about on these calls, I hear a lot about how to defend yourself, and people are getting out of jail and, you know, things that they'd normally be,

they'd have to pay fines and fees for. They don't, but I don't really hear a whole lot about civil

cases where one person is injured due to another person's

negligence,

and then you get it in the court system.

And if you're a pro se or a self represented

and you're going up against a pretty strong attorney,

that you

what they do to you is amazing to me. I mean, it's unfathomable.

That's why you wanna stay out there. Well, that's why you wanna stay out there if you can.

Have you heard Brent Winters? You're in Kentucky, did you say, Paul?

Yeah. Kentucky Southern Indiana. I heard somebody the other day talking about Kentucky and Indiana, and I was gonna That was dive in because that's that's my area. Well well, that was probably Brentwinners.

That's his area. Okay. Well, it's probably Brentwinners. He was that's his area too on the Wabash Valley there. He is a practicing attorney.

He's a practicing attorney.

And,

and these are you're you're the you're the plaintiff here. Right? Not the defendant.

Well, the interesting part is in almost all the cases, but two, I am the plaintiff.

However, in the two cases where I'm the defendant,

in one case, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and the judge wants to go to a jury trial.

And the plaintiff has failed to state a claim of which relief can be granted.

And in the other case, the the plaintiff committed fraud by by doing a fraudulent affidavit

of complaint.

So I'm countersuing

both of those cases.

Well, what I'm gonna do Or counterclaims. You to Brent. I'm gonna I don't handle this kind of stuff. I don't wanna give you any advice because I don't know what to do, but I'm gonna say Brent Winters,

who is who I think you're referring to that said he referred to that area,

is a practicing attorney. I would assume

I would assume he's licensed in Kentucky.

He's got part of his mother's family is from Kentucky.

And,

you can reach him at commonlawyer.com.

Common

lawyer

Com.

Common. Okay. Brent Winters. Okay. Correct. And they'll have a contact button there

and just send him a,

a,

an email,

Paul from Kentucky. Put that in the subject line.

Sure.

And I'll tell him to look for your email. Okay?

I appreciate that. And that was my purpose for,

reaching out today was yes. I understand you might not be affluent in this or whatever,

or it may not be your specialty, but I was looking for someone who

yeah. Right. Right. Right. Me too. I'd rather hold a gun to the side of my head than that be my specialty. Go ahead.

Amen. So my point of view is, but I was thinking you could refer me as you just did. So I appreciate that. And I really appreciate this call. It's been amazing. And I do wanna add one more quick thing.

So so I'm I'm I do the tax exempt thing as well.

And I happen to have a client who refused to,

obey my wishes

and ended up taking taxes out on me. And,

at at some point when I left that client,

I get a check-in the mail from the IRS because

I disputed that I did request a w four exempt, and the client took taxes out unnecessarily.

And I got a check

I yield. Okay. Well well, good for you then. And,

listen. Come back and hang with us more often. We'll deal with it. But Oh, absolutely. The show's kinda over. Now

for you, you're you're somewhat new. These people stay on this

channel right here sometimes till the wee hours of the morning. K?

Wow. I don't usually participate, but if you've got a question,

members of here are very educated, certain ones, and will probably be able to answer. And if they can't, come back on the live show, and we'll answer it there. I try and do that so that everybody learns from the answer

instead of me having to answer a bunch of different emails on the same damn subject.

Okay?

Sure. And I agree. Alright.

Alright. So that's why we'll I'll let

you're welcome, Paul. I'll,

I'll drop Brent a message to look for your email with the subject line Paul from Kentucky.

Paul from Kentucky. Got it. Subject line. Perfect. Okay? Thank you, man. Alright. Who else? Do that. Thank you.

Roger, I got one last comment.

Okay. One last comment. Fri Friday with, Brent, he mentioned that, if you lose in the courts,

well, you can there are two other branches of government.

And

I agree with that

to for remedy.

And so but this is why I like yours so

so so much

is that we

we go to the executive branch,

and we get our remedy by sending in our affidavit.

So I really appreciate you, and thanks so much.

Yeah. Well, we,

we go to the secretary of state. He's the guy you gotta do it with.

So, anyway, you're welcome. I mean, I look. I've known for many years how powerful this was. I might not have been able to explain it, but I have understood the, the little pivotal edge that we're walking on and how damn important it is. And I think every one of you that's taken the time to look into this and think about it will probably agree. And thank God I know that there are some people who are not

subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So they can get you on that because I can back it up from here.

Oh, I don't know about a thousand years of legal precedent. Okay?

Yep. So And when he I'm gonna Yep.

Oh, yes.

Never mind.

Oh, yeah. I'm in a vamoose.

Okay? So I'll see y'all,

manana

in la manana.

And, have a good day. Thank you for everything. Good things.

You're welcome, Bori. Hopefully, some good things will happen today. But very good show today, very meaty,

from other perspectives on what we also center on and its importance. And, again,

I want you to know how special you are.

There's a lot of people that do not this does not resonate with them.

For whatever reason,

don't know. Anyway, we'll find the ones, hopefully, that it does. I'll see y'all tomorrow.

Ciao.

Larry? I had an I had an applied nationality question.

Does anybody have to do a form fifteen eighty three at a UPS store?

What's the name of that form?

And you mean United Park It's basically

what?

Yeah. It's a it's a it's a post office box there, if you will.

They require two pieces of current identification.

So you can give, say, the passport or passport card,

but then the second form is,

an ID or driver's license, you know, with the address, current lease, mortgage or deed of trust,

home or vehicle, insurance policy,

vehicle registration card, voter card.

So,

of course, this is to

put somebody in an address situation, a commercial situation. So,

I didn't know it's I haven't I haven't read the whole form. I've gotta try to find it, besides at the UPS store and see if there's, you know,

or

citizen or national kind of language, but I just figured I'd ask, because it's

a kind of a way to for them to get your, you you know, your living man address, if you will.

And May I correct you?

It's not a form. It's a contract.

There you go. Yep.

I'd say utility bill would be the least innocuous.

I'd like to mention

the 15 statutes at large one more time. I think it's about 700 pages, but

this covers the fortieth Congress,

which covers the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments being passed,

the impeachment of President Johnson

and the reconstruction

legislation.

If you want to see original intent,

that's where you would find it.

And you've also got that curious little,

expatriation

act passed

by the fortieth Congress,

which

is really interesting

and short to read.

What they're talking about there

is really hard

to know for sure.

But

it is argued by Lee Bros that that is a way out

for all the citizens they're going to be making with the fourteenth amendment

to be able to bow out of it

and stay a state citizen. Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Where can we get a copy of that please?

I would assume online.

The the 15 statutes at large, it's, just over 700 pages.

Thank you.

Larry Samuel.

Is is Larry still back on

the line? Okay. Scott, can you wait a minute? I wanna speak to what Samuel just spoke of,

about the statutes at large and why,

president Johnson, Andrew Johnson,

was impeached twice,

and it's because he,

vetoed

the Reconstruction

Act

twice. And I believe the fourteenth amendment.

He did not wanna go along with that as well.

Oh,

that had to do.

And he just he just, you know, was a thorn in their side,

basically, because, you know, Roger talked about the feudal system and of course we all go back to,

to England for that. Well,

England got it from the Romans,

and if you look at a lot of our language in a lot of our law,

and I think also what Lincoln did,

because Lincoln did was not a Christian. He was an atheist. He did not like Christianity,

and he basically,

went from

Christian common law

to Roman law.

Samuel?

Yeah.

You know what I find very ironic?

Johnson also vetoed the

the first civil rights amendment,

and then

Johnson

passed it a hundred years later.

Yeah. Absolutely. It's sort of like those things between Lincoln and Kennedy that are Right. So many con you know?

Yeah.

It's crazy.

You can't make this shit up. Only they can.

Yeah.

And they can make it happen

as long as we agree with it. I yield.

Okay. Somebody was looking for me. I was talking to someone.

Yeah, Larry.

By any chance, can you slowly,

read the,

reference to the congressional

record and where you find it again? And, And, also, can you send it to Paul?

Yeah. Yeah. I was gonna send it to him, the the whole PDF.

And then you can just you know, when you get it in an email or whatever, you just it'll be a PDF. You just open it up. There's all the whole files right there. It's gonna be about 200 no.

Maybe a hundred and and so pages, but you could just

scroll to the areas that I that I referenced.

Okay.

Do you want me to read the actual,

you know, the link?

Well,

or or a search term that I can find it.

Okay.

Let's see.

Larry, if you read that link, I'll type it into the chat right now.

Read slow. Let let me let me look for it. Hold on. Let me just get mute it, and give me one minute.

Alrighty. Thank you.

And, Julie, you can look up your

you can look up Julie, you can look up The Republic is the House That No One Lives In by Lee Bros.

By you.

Thank you.

I believe the spelling of his last name is b r o b s t, Julie, if that wasn't clear.

Thank you.

You can find that on samguardians.org.

Samuel, were you saying to,

to submit

to attach that to any government form and just say,

thank you very little, but

I'm a national and not subject to this jurisdiction. So if you're going to interfere with my,

the mails,

then please let me know.

That you're not able to, you know, keep this box or whatever.

Are you

Well, before Samuel speaks, I would just say you have a right to,

change a contract

before you

sign on the dotted line.

And if they accept it, then

wonderful.

True.

And you don't necessarily have to put forth why

you're changing it.

Just change it

and see if they accept it.

It's a counteroffer.

True.

Question. Where are you gonna post the link for and the pages,

from that congressional record to include with your paperwork?

Hey, Paul.

I tried to email it to you, but then when I went to attach the PDF,

it said it's 57 megabytes in Gmail, and it exceeded the 26

whatever

megabytes.

So I'm gonna try to find the link,

and then I'll send you the link.

I think Paul just said we could find it on

famguardian.org.

There you got a search term?

I can't remember what I used.

You might be able to

use that date

of 06/13/1967

congressional record.

And I think it came from the U. S. House website,

but I'm double checking. Give me another minute.

June

'7

something called

page

15,643

came up.

Yeah. I found that too. It's not complete. It's just a certain part of it. I think it's 52.8

megabytes

on the next.

Did you see the one from June 12 to June 20,

volume 113,

part 12?

I didn't. I just have the one that starts with page fifteen

five three seven, and

it covers the pages that Larry mentioned, the fifteen six forty one through fifteen six forty six.

Okay.

If you go get in the search engine,

type in congressional record of 1967,

scroll down, like, two or three entries,

and

there should be one

there should be one that says

congress.gov,

October nineteenth 19 60 seven, volume 113, part 29, bound edition.

And when you click on that, a web page is gonna come up. It's gonna say congress.gov,

and then you'll see the entire day, it'll be underlined in blue, Entire day PDF of 64 megabytes.

I think if you click on that, that should bring up

yep. That's it. Because it says download file again.

And then you go down to

pages a hundred and five to a 10

of the PDF,

and they're labeled as 15641Dash15646.

Anyone find it?

You know, I can't write that fast.

Oh, sorry.

So, again,

go type in I'm using a Google search engine because they're my favorite.

And you type in congressional record of 1967,

and then you're gonna get your first result.

And,

it should say congressional record,

06/13/1967.

It's it's labeled as congress.gov.

And when you hit that, it brings you to a web page.

And then it'll say at the top like, at the top under the heading, 06/13/1967

volume one one three, etcetera,

it'll say entire day,

PDF,

and, you just hit that.

And then you scroll down to those pages I referenced.

So there's there's two types of,

labeled pages.

The PDF

is gonna count the pages, the actual PDF, and then the congressional record actually has their way of labeling the pages.

So it's one zero five to one ten of the PDF, which will be considered

one five six four one to one five six four six of the congressional record.

It should be just a link to that page,

isn't there?

I might be able to,

here's what I could do. I might be able to email

If Paul's around, I'll email him this page that I'm looking at.

So you're including those those pages with, what, your affidavit paperwork?

Yeah. Those five pages.

Yep. And you highlight, you know, certain parts, especially the part I read today.

Paul, are you there?

No. I think he stepped away for a minute.

Alright. I'll just read this if you guys wanna type this in.

It's a, it's the link that'll take you to

the congress web page, and then you'll see it underline the the the entire day.

So,

it's httpscolon2forwardslasheswww.congress.gov/bound,b0und,-congressional-record/1967/06/13/house-section.

Okay. You're gonna have to do it again because you're you're going faster than I can even write it and actually read my writing.

Alright. Hold on.

It's

You could copy that link. You could copy the link. Just highlight the link and copy it and paste it into the chat.

John, he's on your phone. I had the chat a while ago, but for some reason, I don't know where it went on my phone. But let me read it again.

Www.congress.gov,

and it was an h t t p s colon

two forward slashes then the www.congress.gov,

g 0 v,

forward slash,

the wordbound,

b

0 u n d

-

congressional

congressional with an a l at the end, congressional-

record

forward slash. Dude, you gotta slow down. People can't type that fast.

Slow mail. Typing it that fast?

Dardo. Do you want me to send it to you?

Did I send it to you already? In the chat.

Congressional.record

or -record/Forward/1967/06/13/house-section.

And then what that'll take you to a web page, and you'll see the entire day you click on that little link, the entire day of the congressional record.

Okay. May I read this back to you before I post it?

Sure.

Httpscolonforwardforwardwww.congress.gov/bound-congressional

Yep. -record/1967/06/13/house-section,

and that's it. That's it. Yep. Okay. Once you click on it, make sure it comes up.

Okay. I will do that. Just post it. Okay.

Yep.

What chat are you posting it? Because I'm on Zoom.

Oh, I posted it

to free conference call

chat. I sent it to Paul.

I sent it to Paul. I sent him that link. Yep.

06/13/1967.

Three '1 '1 '3 part 12, bound edition.

So

I'll just scroll down to see what it actually has to say.

Oh, it says PDFs that were 25 megabytes

may cause browser performance issues and are not embedded,

but can be downloaded instead. You'll have to download it.

Kat,

I,

I got the link that you emailed to me. It was from pages fifteen

five thirty seven to,

fifteen eight sixty three,

I think,

or fifteen six sixty three.

It's a 27

page PDF

just sent me. Is that is that what you're talking about,

Larry? Yes. And what yes. And and what you do is you go to

pages one zero five

dash one ten of the PDF.

And up at the top right hand corner, you're gonna see the pages numbered as they were numbered on the day of the congressional record,

15641

to 15646.

Five pages

about the fourteenth amendment

not being properly ratified and all the arguments

of those that attended that

session that day.

Five to

And I did put a link in in the chat,

and it's a I think it's a PDF,

four pages,

fifteen sixty six four one to fifteen

six four six.

Just those pages

in the chat.

There should be a link just to that. I mean, right at the top.

I'm waiting for the PDF to come up, but I put a link in to the PDF that I am downloading, which is a 20

something pages.

The fifteen five

well, what is it again?

+1 5537

to +1 5663.

So it'd be 26.

Hundred and 20 six pages

a yield.

Well, we can't attach a 26

pages.

Alright.

Here we go. Check the chat in free consultation. 557

subtracted by +1 5630

or

whatever it is. What's it? It's a hundred and twenty six

fifteen six sixty three.

I yield.

What, Paul?

I'm talking too much. Did my math wrong? What?

Paul, don't you have a way of extracting those five pages?

Already done. Already done.

The document is in the chat is in the chat.

Thank you, Paul.

Paul, can you drop it in Zoom?

No. I cannot, but I can email it to you.

Okay. That's great.

J h k might have called me and that'd be great. I'd like to get a copy of the site.

[email protected].

K.

And Samuel for freedom.

Alright. Hang on.

What this?

Blop is blind carbon copies.

K. And

it and

very

and

You know, I've got a,

congressional record page I use quite effectively.

Let me see. It's only one page, front and back. Let me see if I can put it in the drop it

in the link here in Zoom.

In the FCC?

Sherry, check your email. Sherry, check your email.

Excuse me.

Excuse me. Jeez.

Alright. So did everybody get that?

Thank you again.

I gotta go find my email.

Okay.

I got it, Paul. Thank you.

You're welcome.

And, Larry, I sent the extract back to you.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Got a

I gotta,

skip out because I got a couple of things I gotta take care of here, and then I've gotta,

you know, do another one of those missions of mercy that may take me all afternoon. So,

the I got

it. I got

it. K. Cool.

The stream is still up. I'll be taking the stream down in about ten minutes.

So all this all this information will be in the archive on Pod Home

and all that stuff. Welcome.

And I wanna read

a couple excerpts from from that record.

Pretty interesting.

The congressional record, June 13,

page

fifteen six four one to fifteen six four six. It says a citizen of The United States is a civilly dead entity

operating as a co trustee

and co beneficiary

of the

PCT,

the private constructive

quest quest

quest

quest Questeby Trust of US Inc under the fourteenth amendment,

which

upholds the debt of The USA and US Inc in section four.

Point one,

the United States was and is bankrupt

and in reserve ship, thus claimant's claim of corporation insolvency.

Point two, a citizen of The US

is civilly dead and cannot become a real party in interest to any action.

Point four, the fourteenth amendment said is a US citizen.

Okay. That was point three. Point four, claimant is not a US

citizen nor a claimant. A fourteenth amendment citizen claimant

is a grantee

and receiver of sovereignty

as a joint tenant in common in the sovereignty

and claim interest in all funds

in trust accrued

from every aspect

Global Voice Radio Network's tracks