All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2025 - The David Knight Show
29:46
Revolution Rekindled: A Re-Declaration of Independence
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, and joining us now is Barry Hinckley.
He has an organization, a website, Redeclaration.org.
And he's talking about a redeclaration of independence.
I thought it'd be good to have him on.
We just had Donald Trump is talking about rejoining Britain.
I guess if we're going to rejoin Britain, maybe we should talk about a redeclaration.
It's kind of appropriate timing, but you started this quite some time ago.
Tell us a little bit about it, Barry.
Welcome. Well, it's great to be with you, David.
We started this in October of 23, and it's hard to think now in March of 25. That seems like a lifetime away.
Many of us have been fighting for the values that made this country the great meritocracy it became in the city on the hill for many years.
I'm from New England.
My great-grandfather was actually the commander of the Minutemen in Concord, Massachusetts, my eighth grandfather.
And so I was born on April 18th, you know, the day that Prescott and Dawes and Paul Revere rode my family's farm in Concord to alert them the British were coming.
So, you know, great day to be born on a significant date in our history.
So I've always been tuned into the country and its founding values.
And obviously, if you're listening to this show, you know we've strayed.
A long way from those founding values, you know, before the New Deal and certainly way after the New Deal with a massive expansion of the federal government.
So this was our attempt to point out the simple fact that our federal government is way out of design tolerance and is gobbling up our liberties and our freedoms that we are supposed to enjoy in this republic.
That's why we laid down these ten tenets of what we call the Redeclaration of Independence to try to really persuade our elected officials in Washington to represent we the people and not the interests of the deep state.
Well, I agree.
And, of course, they talked about how the king had swarms of officers to harass our people and to eat out their substance.
I mean, they're even killing off our egg supply now.
How do we get these people's attention?
What approach are we going to take?
Why did you take this approach, as a matter of fact?
And what are you hoping to accomplish with redeclaration.org?
Well, if you go to Redeclaration.org and you read the 10 tenants, we've actually been quite surprised.
Now, we laid these tenants down in October of 23. About 2,200 people signed the Redeclaration of Independence, about 1,700 of whom agreed to have their names posted publicly.
as you sign your name gets posted publicly once we verify you're real on the website.
About 500 were so afraid of just having their name associated with founding values that they wanted to be anonymous.
And that tells you everything you need to know.
If you live in supposedly the freest country of the world and you're afraid to post your for fear of retribution by the former administration.
Thankfully, we're saying the former administration.
That tells you everything you need to know.
Oh, yeah.
So our goal was, you know, to do the same thing that the first signers of the declaration did, which is to...
Put your name on the dotted line and sign for values that we believe will get this country back on track.
And we did that after, actually I wrote it after a very inspiring speech I heard Tucker Carlson give at ISI in Wilmington, Delaware in October.
I encourage all your listeners to look that speech up at the Interscholastic Institute.
Tucker gave the first speech he gave after coming out of his retirement.
Before he launched the Tucker Carlson Network.
And me and a few guys, friends, compatriots, wrote this down.
And the goal was to get as many people as possible to sign on the dotted line and then inspire our elected officials to take these tenants to Washington and see if we can reverse the course of the federal government eating our liberties alive.
Oh, I agree.
I agree.
There were no anonymous signers at the Declaration of Independence.
Nobody put down anon or anonymous or anything.
As a matter of fact, John Hancock became famous for writing his name so large.
He had probably the most to lose.
He was one of the wealthiest people in the U.S. at the time.
And, of course, it wasn't the U.S., but the colonies or whatever you want to call it at the time.
And he wrote his name as big as he possibly could.
And so it became something of a legend to put your John Hancock on something.
But people are afraid to put their John Hancock on a redeclaration.
What does that tell us?
It tells us how intimidated everybody has become by being branded a racist if they disagree with you politically or whatever.
You know, that is a standard tactic.
But again, you know, when we look at this and we go back into history, I looked up the date.
It was Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
It came out January the 10th of 1776.
Of course, it was July 4th that the Declaration of Independence was put out there.
So this was something that was percolating through society.
Now, of course, the Declaration of Independence was written from the top down by the elites, but there was also Thomas Paine's common sense spread very, very quickly throughout the colonies.
They had a very high literacy rate, and people ate it up eagerly.
So there was a grassroots of support there.
So I guess my question to you is, how do you see this developing?
Do you see this developing from the grassroots bottom up, or is there anybody that you can think of in Washington that is going to be aligned with even these 10 points that you put in this shorter redeclaration?
Well, interestingly, we know that it got...
All the way to the top, because I sent it to Tucker, who I have developed a relationship with since writing this, and he got passed around to Vivek and other people.
Robert F. Kennedy I sent to.
I also know him personally as well.
And so we know these 10 tenants made it to the top.
And if you look at what's happened since we've written them and since President Trump was sworn in in January, they're either getting talked about.
Or they've come true.
Like, you know, the ninth tenant, I think it's the eighth or ninth, you know, eliminates the Department of Education.
We kind of threw that one in there as really wishful thinking.
Well, sure enough, here we are, the Department of Education.
You know, let's see, you know, how the court system addresses this executive order.
But, you know, Trump has already taken action that way.
He mentioned a balanced budget in the State of the Union.
We know we have DEI out of the military, another one of our tenants.
He is...
Pulling us out of these globalist organizations, which is making sure that Americans are only subject to American law, not international law.
He's already taking steps through tariffs to level the playing field for American workers.
He has mentioned single-day paper ballot voting.
Our last request on that tenant is to actually...
Make Veterans Day have some real impact and make Veterans Day, Voting Day, make it a national holiday so we can not only honor our veterans, but people can have the day off and take the whole day to vote, not to try to scramble in before or after work.
So I think about six or seven of them have already been addressed.
A balanced budget amendment has not been...
Addressed yet, but has been talked about, as you know, in his State of Union.
So we've made an immense amount of progress with these 10 tenants since October of 23 when we published them.
And in fact, we're pleasantly surprised at how much progress we've made.
Now, you mentioned DEI, and you mentioned RFK Jr. about this.
At the beginning of the program, I was talking about the new CDC appointment that was put in by Trump.
First, there was somebody who had been a vaccine critic.
He is a medical doctor who talked about connections between autism and vaccines.
But he was essentially vetoed by a pharmaceutical senator, Republican Cassidy.
And now...
Trump has just announced as his nomination the person who is serving as the interim CDC head.
Somebody who at the CDC, we see that they have now purged DEI off of their website, which is good.
I'm glad that they're getting DEI off.
The problem is that they're still approving on an emergency use basis more vaccines and still continuing on with the childhood vaccine schedule.
But do you see that as a victory?
What do you think is really happening with RFQ?
Well, you're talking about a trillion-dollar-plus agency, and battleships don't turn on a dime.
There's a lot of work to be done, and there's a massively entrenched...
You know, financial and governmental institution enforcing the status quo.
So it is not going to be easy to get America healthy again, to make America healthy again.
RFK has many foes that are highly paid to block his path.
But he said that he's okay as part of his condition to get appointed.
He said he's okay with the vaccine schedule that's being put out there.
And nobody is banning, not at the state level.
Not at the federal level.
Nobody is banning these mRNA shots.
As a matter of fact, they're working to take it to the next level.
And the CDC director has been involved in using artificial intelligence, just like Larry Ellison.
Who was featured by Trump with the Stargate Project a day or so after he became president, talking about how they would use artificial intelligence to custom design genetic vaccines for people.
You know, I look at this and I see a massive poisoning that is happening in our society, and yet...
We're thinking that we've got victory when we just get them to stop talking about this gender insanity.
It seems to me like they're majoring in the minors if they're doing anything at all at this point.
Well, I just ask you to be patient because this isn't a battle.
This is a war.
Yeah, it is a war against us, and it's been going on for five years, this vaccine war.
And I'm sick and tired of seeing people die from this.
Oh, it's been going on for decades, absolutely.
But the Trump shots have been going on for five years, and Trump is still pushing this mRNA poison out on people.
That's the thing that concerns me about it.
So I'm not as salient as you are that there's going to be anybody in Washington that's going to do this.
I see this as rearranging the deck chairs and trying to rebuild trust in a government that cannot be trusted.
We never had the founders ever trusted government.
Patrick Henry said, trust no man.
Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, and yet this entire operation of RFK Jr. and the rest of them is about building blind trust in people who have been murdering us for money.
Well, let me finish here.
Two things I'll say to you.
I guarantee you RFK Jr. is going to do one thing and one thing well as it relates to vaccines and taking on this massive pharmaceutical industrial complex.
He knows, you know, and even Trump alluded to this.
In his State of Union address, when you talk about 1 in 36 kids have autism now, and it used to be 1 in 10,000, okay?
Point, look no farther than vaccines and poisonous food, okay?
So we're zeroing in on the targets.
But what RFK will do, I promise you, is he will arm mothers and fathers with information so they can make a decision to opt out of these vaccines.
That will be the first step, okay?
And, you know, Rome wasn't built in a day.
When you've got five, six decades of vaccines...
And huge, massive, multi-billion dollar complexes, you know, pushing them down doctors' throats.
If you limit the ability for doctors to make money on procedures, but, you know, incentivize them to make money on pumping kids full of shots, guess what you're going to get?
That's going to take a long time to unwind that, and I believe that's what's going to happen.
It's going to be first wage with information, and that information will arm voters and parents with what they need to roll the stuff back and make our food and our medicine healthy again.
Well, I hope that's going to be the case.
I think that we've got enough information, quite frankly, and I think what we need is common sense.
Yeah, you might and I might, but not enough people do.
Right? I agree, but I don't think that a savior in Washington is going to help us.
I think what we need is some common sense, and we need a spirit of independence that is going to rise up from the bottom, not from the top down.
I don't see these people.
I see them going to Washington.
I see them going to these confirmation hearings.
They are literally selling their soul.
They are contradicting everything that they've talked about for their entire life.
They deny it in order to get the position.
And when you do that type of thing, you don't have people of character that can lead this country if they begin by denying what they have said all of their life.
I just don't see that happening.
So let's talk about the Department of Education.
Now, this executive order to get the Department of Education down, this is something that I've not yet talked about today.
But what do you see changing at the Department of Education if they're going to continue working Funding from Washington.
Does it matter that we have a bureaucracy up there if they're going to send the money?
How do you view that?
Is that a real shutdown of the Department of Education if they're going to still provide the money?
Well, once again, you're talking about almost three decades worth of precedent.
They have to get unwound.
And it's not going to happen overnight.
They're shutting down spending it with Doge overnight in some areas, right?
So they could just say we're not going to continue.
When you look at $400 million just to Columbia University, which Trump shut down because they had protested Israeli politics, but why are they getting $400 million?
dollars.
It's the money that needs to stop, and it needs to stop just because the government doesn't have the authority to do it.
We could have a balanced budget amendment, but how are we going to balance that budget if we're going to be sending Ivy League colleges hundreds of millions of dollars a year?
I don't understand.
You're not going to find an argument from me there.
And you're certainly not going to find an argument from me that it makes a lot of sense to send money from Ohio to Washington just to get it back again, knowing that people are going to clip coupons the entire way.
I say keep it in Ohio in the first place.
I think if you follow what Trump's doing, he's talking about eliminating income tax for people making less than $150,000.
The byline is that money doesn't go to Washington.
It stays in the state.
Right? So, certainly, the remedy, in my opinion, is exactly the design of the founders, which is, you know, empower the states to control their own destiny, you know, within the formation of our republic.
So, I think unwinding the Department of Education is not, once again, an overnight task.
You have to clip away at it and eventually get rid of it, because there's going to be a massive amount of resistance.
I mean, keep in mind...
The Department of Education is often seen as the arbiter of elections.
Because if you have, let's say, 4 million voters that are either employed as teachers or related or married to a teacher or in some type of administration role in the public school system, and you have a country tied 50-50 on elections, those 4 million people decide who becomes the president.
So, it's a very, it's a sacred cow for the Democratic Party.
They launder an immense amount of money through union dues into their elections.
They are not going to go down without a fight.
And I think, you know, it's the old saying, how do you eat an elephant?
It's one bite at a time.
But, you know, the Department of Education is in our sights, and I mean the sights of true libertarians and Republicans.
And I think we will grind it down, but it's not going to happen overnight.
But I agree with you.
I spent a ton of money for my daughter to go to George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and it was a giant scam.
She learned more in high school than she did in college.
She went to a very, very good high school, but it wasn't worth it.
Fortunately for you, it's probably good she didn't learn anything at George Washington because they would have taught her the wrong stuff.
It's really about indoctrination more than it is about education in so many ways, as you know.
You are not wrong.
Yeah, as you know.
You are not wrong.
That's why the government wants to keep its foot in it, and it's why it wants to control the purse strings, because ultimately...
Both this government as well as subsequent Democrat-run governments will set the curriculum.
If they can fund it, they will define what it's going to be.
But let's talk about some of the ways that they're going to do this, for example.
We know that when they have shut down anything they've shut down immediately, they've had lawsuits brought against them.
And so you talked about states' rights and how we have separation of powers.
And I said state rights.
I meant state.
The big issue with all of this stuff, and the thing that I think they're going to have to address or they won't get anything done, is going to be judicial supremacy.
If you can have judges, and I know that they've talked about the fact that we can't have one judge who's going to make policy for the entire nation, but it is through that whole The Trump administration?
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, of course.
I mean, he's going to fight every step of the way.
And we need some precedent here.
I think they pointed out that there's already been some precedent set by the Supreme Court, but they're challenging, you know, they meaning, you know, the judiciary, you know, liberal activist judges, let's be real about what's going on here, are ignoring the precedent and throwing down roadblocks.
I think many people understand what's really going on here is they're trying to slow down the Trump train.
And they feel if they can bind this thing up in court, and these are all derivatives from Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and all the other massively liberal elite law schools, they figure if they can slow the Trump train down long enough and they can somehow pull out some type of a coup in the midterms, they can bind this thing up and Trump won't succeed in right-sizing our republic.
I think that's the game that's getting played here, and I think they're completely ignoring what is precedent, and they're completely ignoring the law, and they're just trying to slow things down and throw a wrench in it, if you will.
I think Trump's going to fight it every step of the way, and he should.
Well, I don't know if he will, but we've seen some of that.
I saw a little bit of hope when...
You had a judge that said you can't deport these criminals back to El Salvador, send them to El Salvador, whatever.
And they did it anyway.
And I thought, okay, well, now that's what they need to do.
But then they came back and they said, but we're doing this and staying within the orders of the judges and that type of thing.
So I still don't see the fact that they really want to fight this.
I know that in the first administration, you had Trump who was opposed.
He ran opposing DACA.
But when he got there, the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, when he got there, that was not even a law that was passed by Congress.
That was an executive order by the Obama administration, not even by Obama, so much as by Napolitano, who was his attorney general, and he abided by that.
When, you know, he asked permission of the judiciary, and they said, no, you can't get rid of the previous executive order from the previous administration.
It was absolutely absurd.
So I'm not really sure that they're going to do that.
I hope that they do.
And I think that when we talk about how one branch is exercising supremacy over any other branch, that is really a violation of the separation of powers, as I'm sure you would agree, right?
I certainly agree.
As far as it relates to Trump's first term, I think he admits he was naive and he had a lot of the wrong people around him.
A lot of them were swamp creatures that had an interest in the status quo.
And this time he's come in guns blazing.
I think a lot of people are quite happy with the pace of play here.
In fact, he's pushing the establishment way out of its comfort zone, which is why they're hitting back.
You know, so hard because they realize it's a fight for life and death of the deep state versus the return to our republic.
I agree.
Well, you know, when you talk about securing our elections, I absolutely agree with what you have in person, single-day elections with a valid ID.
I think that is, unless we have that, I'm not voting again.
I've run for Congress, but I'm not voting again unless we've got...
No worries.
They'll vote for you.
Yeah, that's right.
Several times.
That's right.
In every state you've ever lived.
That's right.
I've told this story before of a friend of my brother-in-law who went in North Carolina where they got a very long voting period and no ID.
He shows up to the poll on Election Day, and they said, you've already voted.
No, I haven't.
Yes, all you have to do is give them a name and an address.
You and this other person at your address, he goes, well, that's my mother.
She's been dead for several years, so yeah, they will vote for you.
So we have firsthand experience with that.
Let's talk a little bit about term limits.
Because I remember when Newt Gingrich had his contract with America, and that was one of the ten things in the contract with America.
It was the one thing that he did not pursue when they got there.
Of course, they actually even got through a line item veto.
And of all things, it was Rudy Giuliani who challenged that and took it to the Supreme Court and got that overturned.
But when we get to term limits, do you see any sign whatsoever that there's anybody in Congress that is interested in term limits?
Sadly, no, because it's the best job they've ever had.
And they're making it better all the time.
Yeah, I mean, I ran for U.S. Senate in 2012 against Sheldon Whitehouse, and so I know the inside of the game pretty well.
And these folks have the scales tipped so far towards incumbency that the only way you ever get them out would be through term limits because the deck is completely stacked.
Unless they get a photograph of you with a little boy, you're not going anywhere.
That's how you get elected to Congress, if you've got a photograph of you with a little boy.
I think that's how Big Pharma controls you, because they have a photograph.
That's right.
We need term limits.
We need it badly.
A lot of people talk about it.
It's the one blind spot that the founders missed.
I mean, they couldn't be perfect.
They were certainly prophetic, but they weren't perfect, and they missed this one.
They never thought.
That people would be so selfish.
And let's face it, if you have stayed beyond your useful life, Mitch McConnell...
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, you know, read the list out.
You know, Joe Biden, you know, you are so out of touch with what the average American needs.
And you end up getting, you know, you're trading in trillions of dollars.
You have innumerable powers.
And, you know, you make 175 grand a year.
That leads to corruption.
And we see it over and over again.
And, you know, I was talking to my wife last night.
I was like, how did we end up in an era where...
The average American thinks it's okay that, you know, two years out of office, you know, politicians retire worth $175 million.
Like, it would have been obvious corruption, you know, 100 years ago.
You know, I'm a Yankee from New England.
You go, you serve, you go back.
And now we have, you know, Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine, worth $50 million as a career senator.
How'd that happen?
So we need term limits.
We need it badly.
I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll enforce it on themselves.
Let's face it.
Congress enforced term limits on the president when they had a chance.
They didn't do it on themselves after FDR.
That's right.
Hopeful thinking.
Hopefully we'll have a true benevolent leader that gets it done.
I think part of the problem is, you know, I think we've got a really good metric for the amount of corruption that is in Washington when we look at the amount of money that's spent on the elections.
And, you know, at the 2000 elections, you had George W. Bush spent $100 million, and Al Gore spent $70 million.
They spend more than that now on Senate and House races.
And we have so much concentration of power, even in those Senate and House races, because one of the early things that was...
Well, the big concern I had as it relates to,
you know, attribution of Congress Congressmen and women is what's happening in California, for example, where you have millions of undocumented people.
And this was the huge miss.
And Trump challenged this in his first term when he challenged the Census Bureau, counting everyone in the state and still having that apply to how Congress is apportioned in the House.
And he lost that in the Supreme Court.
And now, you know, I had, I was living in Rhode Island at the time.
Rhode Island's population was shrinking.
We had two congressmen.
And I had, and I keep in mind, I had run for U.S. Senate in Rhode Island.
So I knew who the, it's only a million people in the state.
You know everyone in politics.
And I knew that all the hardcore leftist activists, they were all working for the census.
They showed up at my house multiple times trying to find people because I had a large house.
Trying to find people to add to the roles.
I guarantee you they counted everyone.
And beyond everyone's wildest dreams, Rhode Island somehow held on to a congressional seat that everyone predicted we'd lose.
So that's what I really am concerned about, is the massive amount of illegals here in this country that are apportioned into Congress.
So think about that.
Taking millions or hundreds of thousands of people, and you're giving them Congress people, and then electing them to Washington, and then they can vote how taxpayer dollars are spent.
That's real power, and that's what's really going on.
That's what really worries me, quite frankly.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
It absolutely is a government-created problem, what we have with the border and with immigration.
Again, it remains to be seen what is going to happen with all this stuff.
It's early days, and we've seen a lot of things that are moving, but as you pointed out, You know, the court's just coming in and shutting down all these different actions.
I think it is going to require a direct confrontation about judicial supremacy or all this stuff is just going to be playing to the...
to the fan club and then getting overturned by the judiciary within a few months or whatever.
I think that's all going to be reversed, everything that they've done.
If they don't directly attack this judicial supremacy, if they don't reestablish a separation of powers, I don't think any of this stuff is going to work or will last.
But hopefully we'll see what happens with this.
And again, the website is redeclaration.org, and people can go there, take a look at the document.
And thank you for what you do.
I really do appreciate you standing up and focusing on these founding principles, Barry.
And Barry Hinckley is our guest, and he has set up redeclaration.org.
I hope that people can see this, and I hope they get the courage to sign their John Hancock on what it is that they believe.
That's one of the key things.
We've got to not run away from what Thank you for putting this up and putting your name there.
Appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, David.
Thanks for having me.
Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
And I could, if only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful grey MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
He told me to get lost.
Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at thedavidknightshow.com.
And David is giving a 10% discount to listeners from now until 2025.
At that price, you should be able to buy me several hundred.
Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.
If you want to save on shipping.
▲
Export Selection