The Sons of Liberty is a politically neutral organization. We believe that the Judeo Christian ethic has provided the principles upon which this nation was founded. It is our belief that these principles provide hide not only the foundation and framework for American government and society, but are also essential to the maintenance of a fair and just society. All program content is based on a Christian, biblical worldview. One of you said to me recently that we shouldn't rock the boat. 

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you I am a boat rock. Good day, america. Welcome Christians, conservatives, constitutionalists, liberals, libertarians, communists, Islamists, LGBTQRS, TV, WXYZ people, all the boat rockers in the house, and anybody else I may have missed. To the Sons of Liberty radio show here on Red State Talk Radio, where we use the Bible and the Constitution not to see who's on the right or left, but who is on the straight and narrow. 

I'm your host, Tim Brown, coming to you live from the US occupied state of South Carolina, the editor@sonsolibertymedia. com and for Muslim friends. I'm the infidel that Allah warns about. I hold to the book the Bible as the authoritative word of God. Glad that you guys have joined us this morning. You'd like to check us out online, please do so. Sonsoflibertyradio. com and also sonsonsoflibertymedia. com in fact, if you're listening by way of the radio and you want to watch the video portion of the radio show, that's right, you can see the face is made for radio. 

Head over to Sonsolibertymedia. com. And there you're going to see two videos at the top of the page. The one on the left is an educational video by Bradley. In fact, it's part one of his My War DVD series. So if you haven't seen that and you'd like to check it out, you can do so up until 03:00 this afternoon, which he'll be live in that area, by the way. 

Let me just scroll down here just a little bit on Suncelibertymedia. com, right up under where we're streaming live. If you scroll down three little spots or so more, you'll see an icon that says Equipping the Saints. If you'll click that, you can watch the entire My War DVD series online for just just so you know. So if you miss something right there it is. Equipping the saints with Bradley Dean. 

That's just right up under where we're streaming live. On the right side of the page, just in case you're interested. On the right side of the page is where we're at. Click on the Play button, blow it up, whatever device you've got. Look for the Rumble icon, bottom right hand corner. Click on that and you can join us in the chat. A lot of friends over there. Good morning, guys. 

Good to see you. Appreciate your support. And while you're over there, please subscribe to the channel Sons of Liberty Radio Live. Sons of Liberty Radio live on Rumble and we appreciate your support there. We're also on beforetsnews. com top of the page with the help of our friend Michael over there, and we appreciate their support and letting us have a spot on their platform. Back to Sunslibertymedia. com, right up under where we're streaming live, is where you can sign up for an email newsletter. 

Again, that goes out once a day, late afternoon, early evening, and you'll have that in your inbox, and that includes the morning show archive. Okay, so all the links and stuff we're going to talk about today, which I know some people are going to be interested in because some people have never even heard of what we're going to talk about. But I'm going to throw it out there. 

Look, I am a guy. I am not a one trick pony in the sense that I only have one solution that I can see for anything. If they're going to attack us from all sides, then I say we bring the solution from many angles, too. Specifically local. That's where everything's really going to happen at the local level. In fact, when we talk about what we're going to talk about today, it has to be a grassroots movement. 

And I don't even like grassroots. I don't like that term because it sounds like something you walk on. And we the people are the ones who are supposed to be the sovereigns here in the United States under the Lord Jesus. I mean, that's who we're supposed to be. We're not to be trampled upon. We're not to be little snails that you step on or grassroots that you step on. 

No, we're to be the edifice. We're to be the body. We're to be the building, if you will, that is there. And the Scripture talks about that, that we are the building of the Lord Jesus. We are the church of Christ. We're built up. We're living stones, his temple. So I think that this will resonate with some people and other people. It won't. Look, I am still of the opinion the best way to deal with some of what's going on is by simply demolishing and abolishing washington, DC. 

I still believe that's probably the best out that we can have. However, if you think that's necessary, there's another way that we can sort of bring things in check if you to. I was looking up several things, and some of the articles that I had years ago have even been taken away from the Wayback Machine. Guess you can't even trust that thing anymore. But anyway, this one is one I want to bring up first and foremost because I want to talk about something here. 

I got a message from our friend Publius Holda last week. She wrote an article about James Madison being concerned over the push for a constitutional convention, which they are relabeling as a convention of states. And in so doing, I wanted to be able to bring that up. That was another one I forgot to load up this morning while I was doing it. But we had a little bit of back and forth. 

And I'd like to bring her back on the show again. It's really early for her to come on early, so we'd probably have to pre record that. And I think we did that the last time that we did bring her on. But it's interesting because she wrote this piece here, and you can read it@sonsoflibertymedia. com. Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article Five Convention, or many of you have been it's been marketed to you as a convention of States. 

Okay, this is what she says. Globalists want a new constitution which moves the United States into the North American Union. We basically have the framework for that in the USMCA. And this is what and she makes it actually, she makes that point here. The USMCA. Trade Agreement. During his first term, President Donald Trump pushed and Congress approved the USMCA, which is the United States, Mexico and Canada Trade Agreement. 

The agreement is in reality, a transfer of sovereignty agreement. You trump people out there. Are your eyes not open yet? I know a lot of you that has happened. This guy has sold out your sovereignty, claiming that he gave you something better than NAFTA. And according to the Council and Formulations President, he gave you NAFTA plus 10%. Now, he helped establish the framework that they wanted all along, they've been wanting for decades, is a North American Union. 

And he set the framework up in the USMCA. That's what Donald Trump did for you. So she writes this, and she goes on, and of course, she makes her argument against the Convention of States, and I think rightly. So she comes down and she says james Madison expressly warned that those who secretly wish for a new constitution would push for an Article Five convention under the pretext of getting amendments. 

He said that here at the end. Note three. This is from the Federalist Papers. A constitution which formally implements the Count, a constitution which formally implements the Council on Foreign Relations. This isn't that, I'm sorry. Task force report hasn't been released, but several other proposed constitutions have been released. And of course, she puts forth the Constitution of the New States of America. Article Twelve, Section One provides for ratification by a referendum initiated by the President. 

The states are dissolved and replaced by regional governments. Answerable to the new national government. We are disarmed under this constitution. Article one, part B, section or section eight? There I don't know how they have those things set up. The Constitution for the new Socialist Republic in North America was prepared by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. Do you guys know about this? Do you know these constitutions are already written? Constitution for the excuse me. 

The National Constitution Center is a quasi official agency of the federal government. Under their constitution drafting project, they released three proposed new constitutions. She's got a link where you can read them. The progressive Constitution, the libertarian Constitution and the so called conservative constitution. Constitution was co authored by Robert P. George. We made mention of this before. He is a member of Mark Meckler's Convention of States Board. It creates a new federal government that has express constitutional authority to impose gun control and red flag confiscations. 

Furthermore, Robert P. George, together with another member of Meckler's cos board, c. Boydon Gray, are also members of drum roll, please. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, many of you who follow Convention of States, I am not here to offend you. I'm here to show you what they're doing in hopes that your eyes will be open. I spoke with a gentleman. I want to say he was out of a he spoke at an event that Bradley was at. 

And Bradley said, well, will you speak to him? And I said, sure, but I said, the Convention of States people don't normally like me because I don't go along with it. And so I spoke with the gentleman, and he was like a leader in his area for convention of States. And he shared with me all the stuff. And I said, I'm familiar with that. I said, so why can't you just enforce the Constitution that you have now and the words that you have now against these people? Why do you have to write new words which legalize things that are unlawful in the Constitution, like spending the debt that's gone on? Yes, it does say in the Constitution that Congress can take on debt. 

It does say that, but the debt we're experiencing is ridiculous. I mean, they're spending money on things they weren't authorized, and that's the problem. And what happens in the Convention of States? You'll see all these things they'll give you these things that sound good, don't they? Term limits. Let's have term limits. You say, Tim, are you for people having just living out a career? No, but your term limits don't stop the corruption. 

It stops you. For instance, let's just say you get a guy in office who actually does what he's supposed to do, at least in his voting, he's constitutional, okay? When his term is up, he's done. You got to find another one like him, and chances are you're probably not going to do that. There are a lot of guys who will uphold their oath, so you're limiting yourself. Term limits are this informed people knowing what's going on and either keeping good men in office who represent them and obey the words and the oath that they took, or you're going to deal with them the other way. 

Term limits are there as a I don't know. I want to say it's almost acting like we're children. Let me give you an example. Some people say, well, if we had term limits, we wouldn't have people like Nancy Pelosi, okay? So the people who put Nancy Pelosi in office all these years, you're telling me somehow their vote's going to change, or the manipulation of the vote's going to change so that we won't get somebody like her again? Come on, use your head, people. 

Use your head. No, it's a deception. It's to pull you in so that they can give you something else. That's what all this is about. And that's why there's a danger here. In fact, I spoke down here at the South Carolina State House, opposite of Michael Ferriss, and there was another guy there. I want to say his name was Bob, and I don't remember his last name. I want to say Gonzalez, but maybe that wasn't correct. 

Some nasty people, boy, I mean, some nasty people. They did not like us. I was there with some of the John Burt Society people. They did not like us coming up and speaking out against them and what they were promoting, because they were no, no. This is not a Constitutional convention. This is just to do amendments. This is not a Constitutional convention. This is said over and over by these people. 

This is said by Mark Meckler. It's said by Michael Ferriss. It's said by all these okay, but one of the things that's very interesting and I thought this would pull up again in the Way Back Machine if we go way back here, way back in the Way Back machine. And I'm going to pull this up here so that we can take a look at this, because you got to see the truth for yourself. 

Okay? This was captured let's see. I think I got the earliest one. I don't know how you read the thing. I just pulled it up here just a minute ago. I'm just going to back it up just so you guys can see that I'm not pulling your leg. This is from 2011. June the 22nd, 2011. This is from the wayback machine. What do you see there? What does that say? Conference on the Constitutional Convention. 

This was held at Harvard, September 24 and 25th of 2011, co chaired by none other than Lawrence Lessig and Mark McKinnon. I think that's supposed to be Mark Meckler, but what I want you to notice is where it's from. It's from Concon. org. Now, Khancon. org, before it went through multiple changes several years ago. Once I wrote an article on it. I don't know why it changed. Once I wrote the article on it, and you had to go back into the Way back machine to see what they had up. 

But Khan Khan Khan stood for the Constitutional Convention. That's what it was promoted as, a constitution. You can bring these things up. You can show exactly what's going on. In fact, listen to what it says here. This is the first words out of it. Democracy in America is stalled. There's the first red flag that ought to be standing up for you. Democracy is stalled. Democracy. Democracy. See, these people actually believe that, though they claim to be on our side, but they actually believe we're a democracy. 

I think this helps them and their idea that, well, we can write amendments that allow for lawlessness that the constitution already condemns. And when I was talking with michael ferriss and this guy bob, I was, you know, the latest amendments, constitution, the congress obeys it's, all those earlier amendments and things like this, and I'm like, are you telling me they don't understand the words? What's going on here? What are you trying to say? Well, no, we're just saying that newer amendments they obey. 

No, they don't. I don't know if you guys realize it, but there was an amendment that was ratified. We're going to talk about the original first amendment this morning, and it falls into the same category, by the way. If there are any young people, you've got energy and you feel like you need a purpose. Maybe this is something that you want to pursue. But there was a young man, I think it was back during the clinton administration, or he's working on it before that, he found out about an amendment from the first continental congress that had several states that had already ratified it. 

So he only needed a couple of states to ratify it. And then it became law. It became part of the constitution. And that is the final let me pull this up. I didn't even bring this up here. That was the final amendment that has been put to the US. Constitution. And that one had to do with taking and limiting the ability of congress to give itself a raise, okay? And in so doing what they ended up doing was since that time, that was like around 1992 or 1990, I forget when it was. 

It was in the 90s. Since that time, congress has bumped its raise up or its salary up four times since then, even though that's in there. But people like michael ferriss and others would have, you know, they just need words that they understand. Well, if they don't understand the words, why are they taking an oath before god and man to uphold those words? That's a question that ought to be asked. 

And if they are too incompetent to know what they're to uphold, they shouldn't be in the position in the first place. Not we go and write amendments to limit time in office and all this other stuff. It's just silly. And also, this is another thing, the balanced budget amendment. Again, we had the guy from the goldwater institute when I was@freedomoutpost. com and publius. Holder wrote an article on the balanced budget, and it's exactly right. 

It's exactly right. She's pointing out, well, they can just spend money on all the lawless things they want to spend it on as long as they balance the budget. And that's exactly what they were doing. The same thing with the debt if Congress got in a position to where, hey, we're out of money, which they do every so often, right? We're out of money. We need the states to vote to see if we can take on more debt instead of doing these ridiculous debt ceiling votes and things of that nature. 

Well, they said, well, we'll go ahead and we'll ask the states. And if we get 26 states, that's not even 50%. It's just over 50%. If we get 26 states to go along and say, yeah, you can go ahead and take on more debt, then we can take on more debt, how does that solve the problem of our indebtedness, seeing that the states are just as drunk on debt and federal fiat printed money as the federal government is? What state is going to say, no, we don't want you to go in debt anymore. 

We got to keep our indoctrinate public indoctrination centers going. We got to keep our roads going. We got to keep all the people on welfare and entitlements. We got to keep that kind of stuff going. You got to print that money. Do you think they're going to say no to that? No, they're not. They're not. So you have to understand what you're being presented with. It's very much like the devil coming to Eve in the garden and saying, has God said who said you couldn't do this? I mean, it says Article Five. 

You can call a commitment. Yeah, you can. You can. But there were dangers that were warned about in that, and I think that it's important that people understand that. Now, sometime back and again, I tried to bring this other up. I don't know what exactly happened when I did it, but I did it. So maybe I can take because I think and again, this is live radio. I want to see if I missed something in the midst of this. 

When I was looking for my original article on the original First Amendment, and I think I did. I think I went to a completely I forgot to go back in time on the wayback machine. Get a time machine and forget to go back in time. All right, okay, so here it is. I was able to pull it up. Let me tell you a little bit about this before I give to you some of the information. 

You don't have to have a convention of states to ratify this. You don't have to go through a lot of complicated meetings. You don't have to explain a whole ton of stuff to everybody in your neighbor. You don't have to do that. And in my opinion, this would make things so difficult for lobbyists and corporate fascists to control Congress. I mean, it really would. And it's part of a plan, too, by the way, unlike the QAnon plan or the Q plan, whatever people say, it's not QAnon. 

Okay, fine. The Q plan that doesn't tell you what the plan is, and you don't know what the plan is. It isn't written out, and you have no idea. But I can tell you it's to destroy America. That's what it's designed to do, keep you sitting at bay, waiting on a savior who's never going to come. This one, actually, if we could get, what, 26 states I think it is, to ratify it, that's all you got to do is get the state legislatures to vote on it, and it becomes law, it becomes part of the Constitution. 

Well, what is it? Well, the original First Amendment was given by none other than George Washington. I mean, he's the one who put it he's the one who put it forward. It's really interesting of what was put forward. Now, this is the text from the 1789 original what would have been the original First Amendment. Okay, this is what it says. Article the first after the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every 30,000 until the number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than 100 Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every 40,000 persons. 

You hear that? No less than one Representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than 200 Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every 50,000 persons. One Representative for every 50,000 persons. Let me give you a picture of what that looks like. Now, there is one representative for about every three quarters of a million people. 

How do you get representation when you're trying to represent three quarters of a million people? The original First Amendment, if it is ratified, elections will have to take place immediately. There ain't going to be room in DC. Thank God for anywhere about 6400 people who will be elected to office. There's not going to be room for them. Well, if there's not room for them, Tim, what are we going to do with them? Well, again, there's a plan in place. 

Go to tacticalcivics. com. You can read it. There are bullet points of what they want to do, and part of that is to bring Congress home. Make your representatives work in the district that they live in. That's going to be hard for some of those people out in California, right, who don't live in the district that they represent. Make them work in your district. Make them work in the area of the people that they serve. 

And when they screw up, guess what? They're guess what's going to happen. People know where they live, they're going to come find them, and they're going to say, hey, what are you doing? You're supposed to uphold the Constitution. You're not doing that. Give them one office space, a couple of staffers, and that's it. That's it. You don't get multiple offices all over the state and in DC. You can function right there. 

You can even use the electronic means. You say, well, Tim, that's open up a can of worms. I agree, it would be. But you call these people and when they vote, they print it out too. That way if somebody manipulates it in between where they are in DC. They've got a hard copy and they no, no, that wasn't the vote that I had. And they can do that. 

They can do their meetings from home if that's what they want to do. Technology is there to do it. It can be very efficient and it can be a means of holding a lot of ridiculous agendas in check. How are you going to manipulate 6000, almost 6500 people? How are you going to manipulate that in that, I mean, I'm sure there's a way, don't get me wrong, but nevertheless, there it is. 

If you can grasp the numbers here in state legislatures, we have about almost 7400 representatives in our state legislatures. If that gives you an idea of what it would look like to have 6400 representatives in the House in Washington, just some food for thought as to what that is, by the way, that would follow up with and of course, Tactical Civics has put together a joint resolution. Again, I told you they have a plan. 

And again, guys, people contact me all the time. Well, it costs $5. What doesn't cost $5 to go over there and just look at the site and see some information, stuff like just it's $5 a month, it's nothing. $50 a year. If you want to do that, save some money. The point is get the information and start doing the work. If you got to form it to fit whatever is going on in your county, then do it. 

But learn the information and go use it. Okay? But you can see here they've already set up a constitutional amendment to be put in place that would work itself off of this original First Amendment, which they quote in here. And it would be to bring Congress home. It'd be to bring them back in that district. But you think about that. The Bible tells us this in Proverbs 1114. 

Here's what it says. Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety. One of the things about having large bodies of people and again, this would be more in line with sort of a Protestant understanding of how things should go, is that you don't go into a pyramid like this where you've got one guy at the top like the Roman Catholic Church with a pope. 

Rather you do it from the bottom up and there's more as you work your way up, not less, more. And so you have that representation. And a lot of that I see governmentally in a Presbyterian church, whether they're theologically sound or not. And we see a lot of Presbyterian churches going the way of other churches, embracing sodomy Lgbtqrstv WXYZ stuff. They're embracing all kind of strange concoctions of creation and other things like that. 

I'm not talking about that. But what I'm talking about is there is a lot of people that represent the churches as you go up, not less, it doesn't go to one man. And the same thing is true here. This is the understanding of government. In fact, my understanding is the idea of how that's done is based off of the scripture and laying these kinds of things out. Nevertheless, we've got all this stuff that's going on. 

So I want to give to you some things. And this is from and I kind of gave you the brief Cliff Notes version of it just now, but I want to give you this. This was from my article back in I don't know when this was 2015? Yeah, April of 2015. And here's what I wrote. Under the original First Amendment, instead of only 435 representatives in Congress, as it has been since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, we would have as many as 6000. 

Actually, more than that, it's because the original First Amendment, in the original Bill of Rights allowed for one representative for every 50,000 people in the population. Add infinitum and we read the amendment to you. It's one of two proposed amendments in the original proposed Bill of Rights which were not adopted by enough of the states to come into effect. So this amendment cannot technically be called the First Amendment. 

Obviously, since it didn't pass, we already have a First Amendment, but it was the original one that was put forward. The issue it addresses is highly important, and the fact that it fell only one state short of ratification shows because, remember, eleven states have already ratified it. My state of South Carolina is one of them. Most of them are southern states. And remember at the first what did we have? 13 states, right? This was one short of ratification. 

The issues it addresses is highly important, and the fact that it fell only one short state short of ratification shows the most of the early framers felt it was important as well. In fact, only two of 14 states, delaware and Pennsylvania, actually refused it. Eight agreed to it, and four states simply did not return the call for any amendments at all. In fact, the constitutional standard we got was one for every 30,000, which would mean up to 10,000 representatives. 

This, of course, was also trumped by the 1929 act. Granted is valid concern whether it is desirable to have another 5565, let alone 95 65 federal level politicians are running around, but the principle of adequate representation is vital to freedom. It was this principle that the proposed amendment should sought to protect. And for this reason, it is worth reviewing this original proposal. One, it raises. Our awareness as to how vital the principle of adequate representation is. 

And two, it forces us to question whether our relatively meager in numbers representative House is much more than the oligarchy so many of the framers predicted. Yeah. And the people say they want a voice. They want taxation without representation. Right. And they don't want that. They don't want those that represent them doing the opposite of what they sent them there in Washington to do. Now, I realize there's some people who are ignorant out there and they put people in there to go do what they want them to do, but it isn't constitutional. 

Well, the problem is those people haven't figured out how to hold them accountable. Many are learning that now. It's a process when you lose how to really yeah. We can talk about impeachment. It's the sole responsibility of the House. So unless you're going to get on your phone and your emails and your letters and send it to Congress and make them aware that a lot of you know what they're doing and you're going to deal with them, which many people won't do. 

I don't know how you're going to begin to hold them accountable because the house is the one who has to impeach. And then you've got to go to the Senate and say, here's the evidence. You see it. You better get rid of these guys. And when they don't do it, what do the people do? Throw their hands up. Well, what are we going to do? This is typical of DC. 

I get it. I totally get that. But I'm looking for solutions. This sounds like it's a solution to me. The only thing missing here is justice for those who violated it, who violated the Constitution. But Tactical Civics has a response for that. They're willing to even show mercy to those who have done that by pushing forward things that will help the people. Okay, we leave you off the gallows or we leave you out of jail. 

If you push forward these things that are good for the people. If you don't, then you're going to get the consequences of what you've been doing. You've got an opportunity to repent. Now, whether these guys are going to do that or not remains to be seen. But I can tell you this. In the past couple of years, I have seen the numbers of people involved in Tactical Civics grow. 

In fact, when we had Dr. Ely and his guys on Friday talking about the lawsuit they have against the federal government going after Big Pharma and the politicians and Bill Gates and Klaus, all these people wanting an investigation into that concerning the COVID shots, tactical Civics came up there too. Why? Because they understand it's the power of the people. And that really is what Tactical Civics is about. 

It's about the power of the people to govern themselves. If they'll do that, if they won't do that, well, then they're going to be left to what they've been under for decades here in the United States. So there are multiple solutions that we can point to with a variety of you know, I gotta tell you, it's an interesting thing. In fact, this was one of the first books, david Zuniga, our friend over at Tactical Civics, I mean, he's the one who started this. 

This was one of his first books, Fear the People. And it deals with this idea of the original First Amendment. It deals with the what is it? 19 points, I think, that they have of things they want to do to bring justice back to DC. To incorporate these things. And none of it puts anything that I see in jeopardy like a convention of States does. None of it does that. 

It's well thought out. I think there's plenty of history that people can learn from this book and also the biblical recitations of why we're doing what we're doing there with this particular plan. And I highly suggest people read this. I read this on the plane coming from Denver to Charlote on the day that Lavoie Finnecom was killed, if you guys remember that. It was on my birthday. We were out at a shot show and had been stranded in Denver Airport for 8 hours. 

And so I read it on the flight back. It's a relatively short read, but very informative if you're interested in doing and you can get it for free online. Fear the People or I think he's got an e version of it. I think you can get it tackled civics. If you're a member there. You can get all the books for nothing. You can download them and read them or you can pick them up for a hard copy for like, I don't know, five or $6 or something off of Amazon if that's what you want to do. 

If you want a hard copy, you can do that and pick those things up. So, again, here's these things they're laid forth for the people. And I wrote this particular article back in January of 2016, and I said people like Donald Trump or Mark Meckler, if they wanted to get together and they wanted to push forth the ratification for the original First Amendment apart from a con con a Constitutional Convention, they could have done that, but they didn't do that. 

They didn't do that. Mark keeps pushing that. I don't know if Trump is sympathetic to the Convention of States or not, but again, I've already shown you, mark is running around telling people this is not a convention, it's not a Constitutional Convention, it's Convention of States. And I've shown you and you can go see it yourself. Wayback machine put in conconcon. org. That was his site, by the way. 

That was Mark Meckler's site. And you can go in there and the Wayback Machine has it in such a way where you can click the links and you can go to each thing. You can see what they were doing. You can hear what they were talking about. You can watch the videos. Many of those are still online at YouTube of what they were wanting to do. And it was a constitutional convention that they were pushing on the people. 

It was not what they're talking about now. And people are easily deceived. Why? Because people want a solution. They want the bad guys dealt with. They want to live their lives in peace and harmony. That's what we want. I think that's what most of you listening to me want. You don't want bureaucrats and politicians in your business all the time. You don't need them telling you whether or not you cut your grass high enough or low enough or whatever the case may be. 

You don't need them telling you you can put a pond on your property. You can't put it on there. You don't need them telling you whether or not you can carry your firearm open, concealed. You don't need them telling you what buildings you can go into with that. You don't need them telling you that you need a permit to go and host a protest somewhere. You don't need that. 

You need people who are going to be on your side, who live like you do. That's what you need. People who understand you. Is that what you see in Washington? Do you see men and women who represent you? Now, take it before you answer that, take a step back from yourself just for a second and examine yourself. I don't like what they do here. I don't like that they did this. 

Okay? Now, what happens in your life? Are you doing something similar to what they do? So with your mouth, you'll say, I don't like that. But with your actions, you're doing the same thing, that they become a perfect representative unto you. I see this with the Trump stuff, I really do. People like what Trump says. They like his snarky attitude. They like sometimes very rude behavior. Look, I get some of it. 

I get it. But for many of those people, they're just like that. That's what I'm saying. And I go back. You draw a parallel here for what scripture says. What does scripture say? Who was our federal head? Adam, wasn't it? The first? Adam was given several commands to perform, and only one. Thou shalt not, thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you can eat, of everything else you can harvest, make a bunch of babies, take dominion over the earth, do all that. 

Don't partake of this one tree. And what did Adam do? He and his wife partook of the tree, didn't they? Yep. And in that day they died and blood had to be shed that they might be redeemed. That's why the Bible tells us that God brought them skins of animals and he covered their nakedness because they tried to cover it with fig leaves. It wasn't doing the job. 

And that was a picture of what was to come. The king leaving glory and coming and becoming a man and giving himself as a ransom for his people, who were acting just like their father. See, I'm not convinced that our representatives are not a reflection of the people at large. I think they are, and this is why the people tolerate it. Oh, they're upset about it. Yeah. Some conservative talking heads get you in an uproar and a rage, make a rash break out on you and everything else, right? But they're not calling for resolve either, are they? The most that they get to is maybe impeachment, maybe definitely investigation. 

We need an investigation. We need an investigation on that. We need it. We've had enough investigations. The people have the information in their hands. You can go online and see it. You can hear it coming out of their mouths, their treason and their crimes. They're telling you they're doing it, but we need another investigation. That's what conservative talking heads tell you. Haven't we had enough of that to start impeachment proceedings? Haven't we had enough of that? And yet the people won't do it. 

The people who represent us won't do it. Why? You have to ask the question, why won't they do it? Why are we made privy to this WWE match rather than bringing about the resolve that will ensure that we keep our liberties? Why is that? I think for many people, it's because they're engaged in the same kind of sins. It might not be at that level, but they're engaged in the same kind. 

They're lying, they're cheating, they're stealing. And so they'll justify their guy doing it, who's got their political jersey on. They'll justify him doing it because they know they're guilty just as much as that person is. They know it. I'm not wrong on this. I know that there are people like that. I know there are people like it. I've run into them. Some of them are people I know for years. 

And that's what they'll look to. You say, well, if we just put 6500 people in here, more in here, well, then we're just going to have 6500 people doing this, that, and the other. Well, that's true. You're going to have a lot more people. But usually it's harder to turn that big ship, right, with a lot of people than it is that little speedboat that's going the way it's going. 

Takes a lot of room to turn them that big ship. So at the time that I wrote this one, back in 2016, I told people, I said, Look, I know Donald Trump's track record. I said, I don't think he's a good guy. I don't think he's here to really help us. I saw him as controlled opposition because I knew the circles he ran in. But I said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Let's see what he does. And so I wrote here with some hope that maybe this guy, maybe he would see it and say, oh, that's interesting. Maybe we'll try that if he's legit. But we didn't see anything like this. We saw absolutely nothing like this. There is a short video I want to play here. This is called America's House again. This is put out by Tactical Civics. And I want you to take a look at this. 

I want you to consider and ponder that this is your land. It is not Joe Biden's America. It's not obama's. America. It's yours. God's given it to us, the people. He didn't give it to them. Give it to us. Listen to what David has to say. The hour is late for America. Amidst constitutional crises, millions of Americans seek anything but a DC. Politician as the next president. But Presidents do not run our lives as fundamentally as Congress does. 

It follows the orders of industries that feed us media lies and wage perpetual war for profit through its Fed cartel. It now threatens our economy with a second Great Depression as its federal courts twist America into a perverse, inhuman, increasingly alien civilization. Both parties in Congress have become deeply corrupt members, building their estates on our backs with a $17 trillion credit card bill. Presidents rule as banana republic dictators over agencies, bureaus, departments, and programs that violate the Constitution, directed by over 100,000 lobbyists for industry, banking, and a handful of the wealthiest Americans. 

Meanwhile, our payroll checks are skimmed to fund this organized crime. As proud Marxists vie for the 2016 Democratic ticket, the GOP daily violates the Constitution just as readily. Congress is the heart of DC organized crime, living an opulent dream while we struggle to pay our own bills and Washington DC's $18 trillion debt. Technology has revolutionized every aspect of life except government. America Again has the solution to shut down the DC. 

Hijacking by taking Congress out of Washington DC. Forever. Our first action project, America's House, begins. In January 2016, we finally ratify the original First Amendment, the Founding Father's design for the House of Representatives. The first article in our Bill of Rights was already passed by Congress in 1789 and sent to the states, but was never fully ratified. The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representatives to have no more than 50,000 people per district. 

But Congress hijacked the House in 1929, limiting Representatives to an arbitrary 435, making districts 15 times larger than the Founder stipulated. So only the wealthy and powerful can wage campaigns for Congress. Ratifying the amendment will restore the Founding Father's design small, local districts. Regular Americans will be able to run for a seat in the US. House because all races will be local, as was the Founder's intention. Stage two is our America again. 

Good guys campaign. We will seek out, recruit, and support true citizen statesmen to sponsor and enact the 22 reform laws in the America Again declaration. Stage Three will be the first law passed by our new apportioned House of Representatives, the Bring Congress Home Act, modeled loosely after the HR 287 proposed in 2013. From now on, each member of Congress will work from one home district office, congressmen limited to a staff of two, and Senators a staff of four. 

Congressmen will receive half the salary they pay themselves today. We will limit both houses of Congress to two terms and end all benefits. We need citizen statesmen in Congress, not career politicians. Eleven states have already ratified the original First Amendment, which will be the 28th Amendment. When ratified, five states do not convene their legislature. In 2016, our America's House Project will push the ratification vote in the other 34 states. 

And when we gain 27 more legislatures votes, we, the People, will turn the tide of history. This has been done before. Three decades ago, a university student pushed the original Second Amendment through ratification. 203 years after the first nine states ratified it. No president will ever end DC organized crime. Only we, the people, can do it. Standing on the faith of our fathers and enforcing our rule of law, even with only 1% of the population, we can move Congress out of DC. 

Forever and begin restoring America. When you join America Again, you'll receive this book, laying out the Complete Action Plan for 21st Century American Self government, reclaiming Congress for ourselves, keeping federal courts out of abortion, sexuality, marriage and health care defending our borders, restoring lawful US. Money, returning 640,000,000 acres of land and minerals to the states, and restoring the citizen militia in every state as required by the Constitution. 

Let's demonstrate to the world that in America, life is not determined by Washington, DC. But by we, the people ourselves. Go to America again. Net Click on take action and let's roll. America. Okay. All right, we're going to close out here if you want to check that out. America Again is what they were called before they became tactical civics. America Again. Net goes to tacticalcivics. com. I encourage you to check it out, see what you can be involved in. 

And then you heard just a minute ago, three decades ago, a young man, a college student, made one of those original the Second Amendment the original Second Amendment come to pass, and it became law through his efforts. We can do the same, and we don't need Mark Meckler and company and all these other people to do it. Talk to you tomorrow, 06:00, a. m. Lord willing. Bye. .