Watch the UNCENSORED second hour live on RVM Premium Mon-Thur at 9AM EST:
https://redvoicemedia.com/uncensoredShow more Not RVM Premium yet? Try it for $1:
https://redvoicemedia.com/jason
Listen Live and Call In at:
https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/
Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermas
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/category/bermas-docs
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on Twitter
https://twitter.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
#BermasBrigade Show less
And what you're about to watch is one of those segments in which you get a little piece of the interview during the first hour, but then we go over to premium and you sometimes miss 20, 30, even 40 minutes of a very, very introspective and important interview.
Well, now over two weeks has gone by.
We love releasing this information to everybody.
So here it comes, the full interview.
You get it now, but hey, you can get it live by just coming over to redvoicemedia.com slash Jason, redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored, signing up.
It's $10 a month or $100 for the year.
We do it four days a week right here.
And then you get everything else they do as well.
It's a great way to support the broadcast.
I also want to remind people, hey, don't want to support the broadcast that way, want to listen to it live, it's still free all the time in audio format.
I mean, that's how we do it here.
So guys, I love you and check out this great interview.
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here.
And for the next hour or so, we've got the man, the myth, the legend behind the River Cities Reader, rcreader.com.
If you want a consistently honest and insightful news source, I encourage you to go there today.
We have a number of topics, including voter roles being suppressed by the establishment, trying to make it harder for you and I to do an honest audit of anything when it comes to our elections.
Voter Suppression Strategies00:15:47
We're going to be talking a lot about the Second Amendment and some sheriffs who have really come to the aid of their populace via that scary thing, the Constitution.
That and so much more with my good friend, Todd McGreevy.
Todd, how are you?
I'm well, Jason.
Very well.
Thanks for having me on to the Red Voice Media and the Burmese Brigade.
Well, Todd, let's start with the Second Amendment because I was in a thread recently where somebody sent me just something from the local sheriff because now you have, I believe it's the Rock Island sheriff saying, no, there's a thing called the Second Amendment, Pritzker and Company, and the people have it.
And for those that don't understand, Illinois has ever more restrictive laws regarding guns.
Now, I would say even past something like New York, where it's almost impossible to get certain types of handguns.
And the people there are concerned because, as you know, we're in the quad cities.
The Mississippi River divides Iowa and Illinois at many, many important points, ours being one of them.
That's why it's the quad cities.
It actually encompasses both ends.
And the culture here is very Second Amendment friendly.
Yes, it is.
It is.
Well, we happen to have the Arsenal Island right here between the two state borders, which is in munitions and weapons manufacturing for over 100 years.
So there's lots of industry in this region that make firearms.
And what we're referring to is HB 5471.
That's the law that was recently passed and signed by Pritzker in Illinois.
And it doesn't go into effect until January of next year.
And there's some kind of stair-step tiers that it goes up to to ramp up to it.
But the biggest picture that there's pushback from local county sheriffs outside of Cook County, there's Sheriff John F. Booker's letterhead.
He issued a news release on Wednesday, or maybe it was Thursday coming past week, saying he was not going to uphold this law, that it was unconstitutional.
And this law includes, among other things, that you have to, if you have a so-called assault weapon, which I haven't drilled down on what all that means, I'm told by many people know more than I do about this, that it means a lot of weapons, many of which everybody has.
If you have one of those, you must register, must pay a fee and register with the state police.
And if the, you know, if you're, what are the state police going to do?
Come door to door.
I mean, they're already taxed as it is.
Most people don't understand that the law enforcement nationwide, I was told this by a county sheriff who would know this, that nationwide, forget the defund the police challenge that's going on out there.
Just look at demographics, he says.
In the next five years, because more people are not coming up in the ranks and young people aren't signing up to become law enforcement, and you have the baby boomer tsunami of people getting old and aging out and retiring and all the nonsense going on on top of it, he says we are going to have just a dearth of law enforcement anyway.
So add that to the mix.
So let's add this extra onerous law-abiding citizens who've already lawfully purchased your weapon, gone through the motions, got your FOIA card in Illinois.
You now need to go another step and register it with the state government.
That's going over real well.
So well that sheriffs have stood up and said, no, we're not going to do that, Governor Pritzker.
Sorry.
And like you said, it's more than just John F. Booker.
You have a lot of people obviously concerned about this because there isn't quite a, like you said, solid definition of the term assault weapon, right?
And it's amorphous, I think.
I quit trying to figure it out years ago.
Like, I'm going to quit chasing this tail to figure out what they mean this time, you know.
And at the same time, you have this SAFE Act that is supposedly now under effect.
For those that are unaware of the SAFE Act, there were literally other members of law enforcement at high levels saying, look, this is dangerous.
This is telling us that we no longer have the legal authority to remove somebody who's on your property, clearly trespassing at the time or doing whatever.
I guess there's a limit to what they can do, but on trespass alone, we can't really do anything about it.
And then it's up to you.
And God forbid, Todd, all of a sudden, one of these unregistered assault weapons happens to be utilized in your own home or your own business.
Suddenly, that homeowner, that free sovereign individual, is the criminal, Todd.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
If you haven't got it registered and you use it to defend yourself, maybe you're going to be in trouble.
It's really just heavy posturing, and I think it's just pushing to see how far people can get.
I think we need to give Sheriff Booker credit where credit's due.
He's in Whiteside County, which isn't technically part of the Quad Cities metro area.
It's just, it's an adjacent county to Rock Island County and Henry County and the Quad Cities.
Sheriff John F. Booker, and I'm going to read you his from his, and we have his news release at our website, but he says, therefore, as the custody of the jail and chief law enforcement official for Whiteside County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the state, nor will we be arresting or housing law-abiding individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this act.
And this gets into the weeds of where I've claimed for many years, since 2013, since I first went to the first Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Office Association convention in Las Vegas.
And I've learned a ton since then about the power of the sheriff to protect our Bill of Rights.
The sheriff typically is also the one who runs the jail.
So if you're a state trooper and you want to arrest somebody or even a city cop and you want to arrest somebody, if the sheriff says, hey, I don't think the arrest you made is lawful, I'm not housing him or her.
That's another way sheriffs can nullify things.
So there's lots of ways a sheriff can make an overzealous executive branch frustrated.
And we're excited to see that other sheriffs picked up the bid.
I sent Rock Island County Sheriff Darren Hart, who recently won election last fall.
He's the first term sheriff in Rock Island County, Sheriff Booker's news release that morning, Thursday morning, and asked him where he stood on it and if he would include us in his response.
I did not get a response from him, but at another website I managed, QCAToday.com, if you go there, you'll see, I think that's the headline that the Quad City Times featured Darren Hart stating he was joining the ranks of other sheriffs like Knox County and Whiteside County that was against this law.
He doesn't go to my knowledge.
I haven't seen his specific statement of what he will and won't do, but he's leaning into not abiding by it.
He opposes the law.
Well, okay, yeah, that's one thing to oppose it, but does it mean you're going to uphold it?
That's a different question.
So hopefully we'll get some more clarity on that coming up.
Well, we need clarity on it because right now, the economy, in my opinion, is at an unprecedented point where more and more people are making less and less money, are working less and less on top of that.
And we don't have an 8% inflation rate.
Obviously, the big talking point right now is eggs.
And because we've been conditioned, we're not looking at petroleum as much because they got it to that almost $5 tipping point, sometimes going over in certain areas.
And they brought it back from the precipice.
You see, for instance, Joe Biden even tweeting out, look at this, more families have more money via gas.
But our electric bills are higher.
Some places in this country, if you're talking about a California, a New York, and others, it's almost to those European levels where you're seeing three to five times the bill of just last year.
You know, I very much think that we're now at a point where they don't have to admit to crime going up, which it clearly has, especially in urban areas and big cities, New York, Chicago amongst them.
The crime levels are out of control.
I think we're headed to those crime levels continuing to increase, and they want to disarm you.
They don't want people who all of a sudden are now feeling the burn and maybe aren't as beholden to the societal values or mores that we've all been accustomed to in our social contract with each other because Todd, they have to eat.
It could get that bad.
And this agenda of gun control has been prevalent for decades.
I mean, it's always been on the agenda.
It's been part of Agenda 21.
It's part of all kinds of any tyrannical agenda doesn't want people to have self-defense.
You do wonder.
I mean, he knew this was going to fall.
Pritzker, for those who don't live in Illinois, I mean, Cook County is where Chicago is, and that's where the cesspool of crime is, effectively, in the state.
And beyond Springfield, the white-collar crimes in Springfield, the blue-collar crimes in Chicago.
I used to live in Springfield, so I can speak to this.
And it's called downstaters.
People that are outside of Cook County, everybody outside of Cook County is effectively a downstater.
And it's like, no, what?
Try to talk to people on the border of Kentucky and Southern Illinois about this.
I mean, I don't think they need to report on it, that the sheriff's standing up.
That's how commonplace it would be down there to go, no way.
So you got to wonder what the true agenda is.
Is it just a gin up?
Hey, the Republicans need to raise more money.
Let's pass a shitty bill so the Republicans can start fundraising.
I seriously think that happens.
I think it happens as well.
I mean, that's how a lot of these things are greasing the wheels behind the scenes.
And you get all this rhetoric.
And what I like right now is, first of all, you're not afraid to talk about the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment and how they work with one another.
And right now, you're focusing on this voter registration commission.
Tell us about that.
Well, this came to my attention from Kathleen, and it's a South Dakota event that happened yesterday.
The state central committee of the Republican Party of South Dakota met yesterday.
And part of the agenda was to change the bylaws so that the delegates in the precincts down at the county level were removed and that they were that the state central committee installed their own slate of precinct people, precinct committee chair people.
Or depending on how you read it, it could be that we're just going to strip this precinct delegates power to vote in any of the processes moving forward.
So there's a kind of a couple of things going on at once.
And it's a result of, I don't know if you've heard of the precinct precinct strategy.
There's been a lot of people over the last several years, especially during the Trump run-up to talk about precinct strategy.
And Tracy Beans talks about all the time.
I don't know if you're familiar with that, but back in the Ron Paul days, we did the precinct strategy organically.
It was the lowest common denominator is at your precinct where you live.
And there's a caucus at the beginning of each electoral cycle.
So the Democrats have a caucus, Republicans have a caucus, Libertarians have a caucus, Greens have a caucus.
The caucus is truly a straw poll.
There's nothing like who won the caucus in the state doesn't really matter.
It's who got elected as the precinct committee people, committee chairs in those precincts, because those are the people that make up the party in the county.
And then when it comes time to move to a district convention, you nominate precinct committee chair people to be a delegate at the district convention.
And these people made it that far.
By these people, I mean grassroots conservatives, call them what you want, First Americas, America Firsters, MAGAs, whatever you want to call them.
Let's stop right there.
These are the people that understand now that the system is corrupt, said, not in my backyard.
Actually believe in the principles.
And we talk a lot about getting a hold on your state and local levels, whether that be city commissioner or you're on some kind of a board somewhere or a council or even obviously state, senate, Congress, et cetera.
There are ways to get involved.
And these are people that believed in that.
And we already can see the massive amount of corruption that we've had build up over the past 20 years that was highlighted, in my opinion, via the midterms and Kerry Lake and Herschel Walker and Blake Masters and all these people.
I was mixing and matching here because these are two tertiary topics.
You actually, I think, let in with the voter rolls.
I think that's what you want.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I jumped over to this South Dakota thing, which is kind of related, but not totally.
And I apologize.
Well, well, I mean, it shows the manipulation of the system.
On one end, they want to control who comes in.
It doesn't matter how hard you work and how many legitimate votes you get.
And even if you can audit it at that point.
But then on the back end, they want to ensure if you're somehow able to circumvent that system, Todd, they can screw you big time.
They can fist you lake style.
And then, Todd, they can just say sorry.
No audit.
You have no right to these things, even as a civilian after the fact, to try to show a historical record.
So let's talk about what.
So there's two.
So let's table the whole precinct strategy for a second.
And that's about dirty inside politics inside a private party system, which happens to be governed by code, by the way.
In Iowa specifically, I looked it up today, revisited the stuff we did over 10 years ago.
And there's Iowa code that governs how precinct committee people are dealt with with regards to being able to convene a convention and so forth.
So that's its own little animal.
Then in Iowa, recently it's come to our attention that let me pull it up here.
It used to be that anybody who asked for the voter rolls could get a copy of the voter roll database in the state that effectively showed who are the registered voters.
And the database will show, and I've actually pulled a database over a million records before from the Secretary of State years ago when I was helping John Narsis run for governor.
I just went back to my project management thread.
I've got all the details about it, and I'm starting to dive back deep into it.
Right now, the voter rolls came up as a major asset and component of election integrity because of all the things going on, the skull duggery that's going on in the past four and five years.
So people are starting to pay attention to, wow, if you have centralized counting at the Secretary of State level, even though you have 99 counties in Iowa and thousands of precincts throughout the state, when it goes up the ladder into central county to be tested against the voting role at the top level, and then those fact those data gets kicked back to the precincts in the counties to be reported to the public, they can jigger the voting roll up here to show they had more people on the voting roll.
They just added the votes in or they needed less.
There's just too much area of manipulation.
So what people are doing is they're saying, let's get a mark in time of what the voter roll looks like so we can have a effectively, you know, a baseline and see, okay, how did the voter roll change over the next last two weeks?
And there are people who are like really hyper-focused on this.
And a voter roll will show you lots of information.
It'll show you what you're registered.
It'll show if you voted in a primary or not, which is a key thing for people who are trying to get, you know, win a primary.
There's all kinds of data there.
It's metadata.
It's all public.
And there's a whole reason why it's public.
And we can thank former New Yorker, not former, Bob Schultz, a fellow New Yorker like you from the Weeded People Foundation, who won a lawsuit at the state Supreme Court level when the Libertarians needed a governor candidate because Howard Stern backed out last minute.
Voter Roll Manipulation00:05:29
They asked Bob if he would run for governor.
He said, I don't want to be governor.
I hate politics.
He said, but I do want to prove a point with regards to access to voter rolls and voter registration data.
And he took it all the way to the state Supreme Court and from there, everybody could have access to the voter rolls.
And it trickled out through all the rest of the states because previously you had to pay for it.
Depending on who was in power, you had to pay more to get the voter rolls.
It's ubiquitous data.
It has been for a long time.
But now that people are starting to pay attention to voter rolls, in Iowa, they're going to change the rules.
They're going to change the rules too.
And I'm trying to pull that document up real quick here, Jason, that I sent a link to.
I got you.
Yeah, voter registration commission.
And they're trying to change the rules so that, here we go.
Do you get it up?
I don't know if you do or not.
Oh, okay, cool.
Yeah.
And we go down to let's see, where's the detail about the rule change?
Are we looking at purpose of summary right here?
The commission undertook a review of all its rules.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yeah, it says these proposed amendments conform the commission's rules with the Iowa Code, provide updates to citations, and clarify which version of the Iowa voter registration application is quote unquote official.
The proposed amendments to chapter three include clarifying that voter list requests must be made in writing and what information the requester is required to provide and providing a clearer definition of political purpose that is already utilized in the Iowa Code.
So you can see how they want to parse political purpose for guess what?
Political reasons.
Seems to me checking the voter rolls for voter integrity is as good a purpose as anything.
I don't know why it's even been coming into question.
It's coming to question because more people are looking under the hood, Jason.
That's why it's coming into question.
I mean, it's an apolitical matter to be able to audit as much as humanly possible your supposedly free and fair elections in a democracy, Tod, in a democracy.
Yeah, yeah.
I've come to the realization, Jason, that it's the government's democracy and it's the people's republic.
And the government wants to protect its democracy, and the people have lost track of defending their republic.
I mean, it's even an inversion of what democracy means.
That's the craziest thing.
Because even in the democracy, you have to get the votes.
You know, if 51% of the folks are up against 49%, or even if it's a nuts hair of 50.1% to 49.9%, that's at least a true democracy.
I'm sorry.
I don't have faith or believe that Katie Hobbs won in a democracy.
I don't believe she got more votes than Kerry Lake.
Am I bad?
Is that blasphemy?
Is that outrageous?
I don't believe that Joe Biden got 81 million legitimate votes for president and beat Donald Trump.
I don't believe that.
It's the noble lie.
It's the noble lie.
We needed it.
You got to have the noble lie.
Noble lies do not justify ignoble acts, which is one of the headlines in our current issue about the J6 folks.
We can talk about if we have time.
But on this, on this topic, I'm going through this gentleman's email who's on top of this here in the locally in the state.
He's a big-time election integrity advocate who's been at this for many, many months, ever since the Center for Technical and Civic Learning started putting private money into swing states and swing counties like Iowa and Michigan and Wisconsin.
This guy has been on top of this.
And he's saying also in the proposed change to this administrative rule, a signed statement would be required to acknowledge that written permission is required from the Iowa Secretary of State's office before the list could be shared with other concerned citizens.
This is overly restrictive and puts these conscientious citizens in the position of having a single authority in the Secretary of State's office tell us how we can use and share this information.
So let me just stop everybody.
I want to explain to people what you just said.
You go out, you go through the proper channels of, say, a Freedom of Information Act request and you file the paperwork.
You put it in writing, like you said.
Then they give you the documents.
Then only you are allowed to have the documents.
Well, that hasn't been stated yet.
We're at the early stages of this.
Well, you just said you couldn't share them with others, right?
Well, or having a single authority, these conscious citizens in the position of having a single authority tell us how we can use and share this information.
I don't know if that's true or not.
This is why it's all gray.
Well, I mean, that's my point.
If they're telling you not just how you can use it, okay, so or whether you can share it or not.
Yeah, I mean, let's just assume at least in use, you'll be able to view it.
You know, you're not going to just get to taste the documents.
I mean, it's not quite defined, but when we talk about the word share, there isn't a real ambiguous thing going on here.
All right.
Well, it kind of begets like, do we need an Iowa WikiLeaks?
Like, hey, a candidate runs for office, runs for a statewide office that requires, you know, can have access to all of the database for all the state because you're just running for a local county office.
Why would you need the rest of the state?
You're not going to give it to you.
But if you are statewide candidate, which was what John Narciss was when he ran for governor as an independent, you got the whole voter database.
So you get it, and then you just dump it on the internet.
Narrative vs. Reality00:15:29
Here it is, everybody.
End of administrative rule.
Now, all of a sudden, you're going to have to go to a freaking embassy and hide if you did that.
Well, I mean, look at the precedent they're trying to set with Assange right now.
There are finally some very, very faint voices in mainstream journalism that are saying, okay, now it's getting dark and outrageous.
We don't want this trial in D.C.
But by all accounts, this has been a locomotive, however slow-moving at points, to bring him here and legitimize the idea that you do not tell the truth about the United States military-industrial complex and its allies, whether they be other nation states or those in industry, period.
And obviously, it's not just the United States because we're talking about global collusion.
You know, the United States is captured in many ways.
And that's kind of a good segue, Todd, into what you just briefly mentioned.
These January 6th trials that are now officially starting.
It's Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday.
So they will be taking place again on Tuesday.
What are your thoughts here?
We have a jury.
Opening statements and all that are now underway.
Tario and Joe Biggs looking at many years in prison.
There's a certain media narrative.
And I believe Norman Pattis is facing some legal troubles.
I think they're trying to have him removed if they haven't already.
I don't know how much everybody's actually following this, but you could probably go watch the space that has just occurred with Kara Castranova and my girlfriend, Alicia Powell, who's been on the scene and in the courtroom via the Gateway Pundit.
And, you know, what is your take on this?
Because you see this narrative around.
We're in the Midwest.
Obviously, there are a lot of people that are not buying into the narrative.
But at the same time, my friend, you know, we are on the border of Illinois.
I think a lot of people have bought into a lot.
You know, I still see people all masked up, in gloves sometimes, having nervous breakdowns.
That's still going on.
Today, I actually took a picture while I was in traffic because old timer in his four-wheel drive vehicle, he's got an American flag hanging out one end and a Ukrainian flag hanging out the other.
And he's wearing a mask.
He wasn't wearing a mask.
He had a big old beard.
No, he's just, he doesn't like Russia.
Okay.
Okay.
I mean, who knows?
But my point is that, you know, all of these narratives are out there.
They're the inverse of reality in many cases.
You can't have a legitimate discussion, quote unquote, in the mainstream.
And now these show trials are going on in America.
But they're not show trials to the people that are still locked up, Todd.
Well, I tell you, I'm trying to send you a link to this cartoon, which if you could bring this up on the screen, it encloses all of my thoughts about this.
It's the one that Ed did for this current issue.
I'm going to check.
This one right here?
Your servant, governor?
No, that's an old one.
Let me get to the chat here.
Where's the chat?
There we go.
Let me just piece this in here.
If you go there and you'll scroll down to the if you saw that in the chat.
Yeah, I don't really have the chat open right now, Todd.
But tell us about it and I'll get it.
If you just go to the reader's website and go to commentary in the top menu bar, go to commentary.
I got it right here, Todd.
Just tell us about it while I bring it up.
Well, it shows a moment.
There it is.
Yeah, if you could click on that, it should come up and maybe fill the screen because it's a little bit different.
Open a new window.
Yeah.
Then go full screen on it, please.
I think you'll find this really interesting.
Here's the teacher of the children saying, sometimes, children, our government has to do things that don't seem very nice.
And they include key responses to select January 6th protesters.
One, unreasonable search and seizure.
Two, imprisonment without trial.
Three, solitary confinement.
It shows some illustrations for, you know, in kind of children's book illustration.
And then it has homework, study the oath of office on the side.
So children sometimes have to do some mean things, especially when hundreds of thousands of citizens peacefully petition for redress of grievances from their constitutionally guaranteed republic.
Then she goes on to the third panel and says, sometimes these mean actions are necessary to protect the government's democracy.
Otherwise, civically engaged citizens could turn America into what, Johnny?
And Johnny pipes up on the fourth panel and says, a police state.
And the teacher says, exactly.
These people got to go down and we will have a police state, Jason.
That's why these people have to go down that are in trial in D.C. right now.
What do I think about it?
I think it's going to be a railroad job.
I think you can't get a fair trial in D.C.
I was the attorney.
I don't know if they can move for a different venue, different jurisdiction, not a jurisdiction, but different venue.
I mean, I feel bad.
I feel terrible for these people.
And I think AmericanGulag.org is another site that they're involved with, right?
I mean, there's a lot of people right now.
You have Mickey Withoff, who's been down at the jail since August at night vigils for a lot of the January 6th detainees.
Randy Ireland, former proud boy down there, numerous organizations, but obviously it hasn't broken through the mainstream.
And you're not seeing it, for instance, on Fox News.
There's still a lot of people on that network that are going with the insurrection narrative, right?
They're going with the mainline, old school, kind of rhino Republican view of things.
And even the so-called alternatives within OAN and Newsmax haven't, in my opinion, covered it nearly enough.
No one's really covered it nearly enough.
And like you said, you know, they wanted a change of venue.
They didn't get it.
I think their best bet, unfortunately, is going to be on appeal.
Unfortunately, to me, a lot of people aren't, my girlfriend in particular isn't happy that I'm taking that viewpoint, especially, you know, she's like, I'm there, I'm on the scene.
She's like, we've got a few good jurors.
So maybe you get.
It takes one or two.
It just takes one, really.
Maybe it just takes one.
Well, let me say this.
Maybe you get a hung juror on one or two of the charges and you don't get the max.
It'd be amazing if they nullified it, though.
I doubt it.
I think that you're going to get convictions on most, if not all, charges.
You're in the biggest cesspool there is there, District of Columbia.
And you're going to look at like 20 plus years.
And I don't like that.
I'm not happy.
What, 20 plus years?
I miss that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You're going to see sentences of like 20 plus years.
No, that's just, well, I mean, if somebody actually was violent and somebody, you know, that's proven, that's fine.
But so this is one of the things I write about in this current issue of the reader as well.
Petitioning for the redress of the bamboozle is a title of my article.
And I cite Carl Sagan talking about once you've taken the bamboozle, you hold on to it and you don't go back.
And it's tough to get to walk things back once you've swallowed the bamboozle.
And a lot of people have swallowed that this was an insurrection and violence and all that because of all the charades that the Congress did with given put the putting the guy's body lying in state who died from a heart attack a day or two after J6, nothing to do with a medical examiner in writing saying it had nothing to do with January 6th, but they put his body in state and they brought all these people in and gave him medals of honor.
Just the charade, the total charade.
If you read the Capitol Police's own news releases, they say, yes, while the medical examiner, we don't dispute the medical examiner's review of the cause of death, but that doesn't change the fact that he died under while defending our democracy and defending the Congress and all this stuff.
So people are buying that bamboozle.
What I propose is that this is part of the First and Protected First Amendment, what people were doing there.
They were petitioning for redress of grievance.
The grievance was there are problems with the election.
Yes, we think some stuff is rigged, the people that were there, many of them.
And we want you to make sure you go through the electoral college process by pausing and reviewing those problems.
And technically, if they had followed that, there should have been some hearings.
When you have the joint session, the Congress and Senate and House, they can say, hey, you know what?
We've got some problems in Arizona, some problems in Nevada.
People have come forward.
There's a preponderance of evidence here that warrants us to put a pause and let's investigate.
Heaven forbid there'd be transparency.
No, they got the false flag that happened that allowed them to stop and act like they're all going to die and so forth.
And then they just rushed, came back and rubber stamped the Electoral College.
So where I'm going with all this is that's petitioning.
And if you look at the First Amendment, there are five clauses that are protected by the First Amendment.
And religion, speech, assembly, press, and right to petition for redress of grievance.
The first four have all been adjudicated at the highest levels of the Supreme Court.
There's been cases and contraries that have been brought forward where there's a body of law about how those four should operate and be protected and what nuances are within all the different circumstances.
The fifth one is one that has never been adjudicated, petitioning for redress of grievances.
Because my God, if we actually have to give an answer to that, we might have to answer petitions.
And this is what happens.
And again, back to Bob Schultz, because he's the granddaddy of petitioning for reduction of grievances with We the People Foundation.
And he got all the way to the Supreme Court numerous times with the help of thousands of volunteers and tons of donors and so forth.
And every time he got up there, he was told by the courts, the lower courts, I think it was the 11th Court of Appeals.
Yes, the Patriot Act, you've petitioned for redress.
You've been harmed.
You think you have standing.
Sorry, sir.
Your harm is no particularly different than everybody else's harm.
Everybody else is equally as harmed by the violation that we have put upon the American citizens.
And subsequently, you have no standing.
We're not going to hear the case.
Go away.
And this is what people were doing.
This is the most peaceful remedy there is, is to stand and protest.
It's all wrapped into one.
That's the ultimate expression of the First Amendment that day, the ultimate expression, and trying to petition for redress.
And there's no other way to cause people to say, that are inside those doors to go, wow, we might want to actually uphold our oath of office.
There's a lot of people back there that really want us to do the right thing.
And that's peaceful petitioning.
So let's take the numbers.
A thousand people have been arrested approximately, maybe more soon.
Who knows?
But let's just use that number as a round figure.
And let's just give the hypothetical that all 1,000 are violent, extremists, insurrectionists, and all deserve to have the hammer come down on them, all of them, which is totally not true in any way, shape, or form.
But let's just give it that number.
And if you are the most Trump derangement syndrome person in the world, would you say that there was 100,000 people in DC that day?
I think you might even acknowledge there's 100,000 people.
I think there's more like a million.
You were there, Jason.
You probably have a number, but let's just say it's 100,000.
1% of the people are bad actors, if the hypothetical scenario we just talked about is accurate.
1%, 99% of them were peacefully petitioning for a redress of grievance.
But we're going to throw all that out the window over the 1%, the little tiny 1%.
What happened to democracy?
What about the 99% who are petitioning for redress?
And if it's a million people, which I think is way more closer to a million people, then we're talking one-tenth of 1%.
And that's if they were all guilty of some violent crime.
So this is a charade of the highest order.
And we have political prisoners amongst us, Jason.
It is bad, very bad.
It's very bad because the seditious conspiracy charge, which Biggs and Otario are facing, is 20 years, up to 20 years.
And obviously they're facing other charges on top of it.
The big sell that they want is that seditious conspiracy.
And as we've been talking about, it's very vague as to what exactly a seditious conspiracy is.
And when you're going to have a judge that is surely going to allow the type of evidence that they used in the Stuart Rhodes and Oath Keepers case and then block other types of evidence, you know, the same exact, when I say other types, I don't mean different types of text messages.
I mean different text messages.
So certain text messages are going to be allowed.
Exculpatory.
Yes, some are not going to be allowed.
Exculpatory evidence won't be forthcoming.
No, and the judge will probably say that we can't allow that as evidence and there's going to be jury instructions.
I've sat in these rooms for jury trials and just seeing people just get railroaded.
It's just bad.
But it's potentially your only chance.
It's a gamble.
It's a high risk, potentially a high reward.
It's not low risk, high reward.
It's high risk.
Low risk, high reward is showing up at your precinct and getting involved in the party to try and change politics.
That's low risk, high reward.
Low risk is standing outside with a sign saying, do the right thing, obey your oath of office.
And high risk is going up to the building and walking in, which you and many others that were there said, no, I'm not going up there.
That's nonsense.
Well, again, I was on the Capitol.
I didn't go into the Capitol.
I did get quite a bit of footage of the actual violence that was taking place on the second level.
I know I gave you access to that entire project.
Absolutely.
And we published it in our January edition in 2021.
Yeah.
And I think it's 22 last year.
And I think it's important for everybody to see.
You know, I kept my mouth shut most of the time.
My comment, you know, it wasn't much commentary.
There's a couple videos where maybe I give some commentary, but you kind of get to judge for yourself whatever you're seeing.
You were a man on the street.
It was outstanding the footage you took there.
There were some stupid people doing stupid shit.
Absolutely.
Totally.
The wire cutters, right?
Like there's the wire cutter people.
Obviously, that sledgehammer is no bueno.
You know, you, again, you had a large group of people.
I think the people that committed any kind of crimes, whether it was property damage or blowing out a window or any type of violence, you charge them with that.
Those crimes are on the critics.
Exactly.
Yeah.
These crimes are on the piece.
Would you do me a favor and go to a browser and go to rcreader.com slash tags slash Jan 6, please?
RCReader.com slash tags slash Jan6.
You can also get to it by going to the January 6th icon on our right column on a desktop layout.
You'll see an icon.
We have about four or five icons.
Yeah, I'm there.
January 6th, please.
Sure.
And if you scroll down on that, your viewers can see some of our coverage.
That's the most recent article there.
And then there's the one I just wrote, but keep going a little bit further.
We mentioned that about election integrity in there.
Keep going a little further.
I want to get down to the ones we did a year ago.
That's our 1000th issue where he covered some Jan 6 stuff.
Keep going.
There's the one we did a year ago.
That's Kathleen's piece.
And below that is the one where if you hit the back button once there and then scroll down just a little more.
There it is.
That's the piece.
If you click on that one, please.
That's the one where we asked you included and four others that were there, Clyde Cleveland, Corey Ibe.
Oh, shoot.
Who else?
And I took that picture, by the way.
That's one of the places I was.
Yeah.
Listen, it looks pretty racist there.
I see all the Confederate and Nazi flags.
Jan 6th Defendant's Access00:05:50
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there's a lot of Trump stuff going on.
But I mean, you guys, when you read the accounting, firsthand of people, and we ask, I think, a dozen questions.
So there's kind of some structure to what people are reporting.
We ask questions about what they observed, what they observed with the police, what they observed with the crowds, what they observed with why they were there.
What did people tell them why they were there and so forth?
It's what's worth reading.
It's a first-hand account that you're not going to see anywhere else.
I mean, in our view, it's a really good, look at this.
One of them is a former journalist who's from Illinois, who's a former Democrat, you know, and is completely into paying attention to the details.
It was Corey Sarah Ford, yeah, and Pat Militich.
You know, Pat.
Of course.
I forget Pat.
Yeah.
And Corey, yeah.
And anyway, it's worth checking out.
Anyway, if you go to the reader's website, you'll see the icon on the right side that has J6, and you can drill down on what we've talked about.
And we're going to continue keeping the coverage on this because, I mean, we're not doing as good a job as Gateway Punty because we're not there.
And we should probably talk about reprinting some of their stuff in our paper to our readership locally here because who's on the ground in those rooms is going to be key to try and tell the story.
I hope it does.
I don't know, Jason.
It's a dark day when people who are petitioning for redress of grievances are getting railroaded.
A lot of them have taken plea deals because they were told they were going to be brought up on terrorist charges.
They didn't take the shortcut.
I just agreed it.
Well, they probably would have.
I mean, it's the seditious conspiracy.
You might as well be the terrorist, right?
And if you're in D.C., you might as well be the terrorist because your chance of coming out there with a not guilty verdict, you know, a lot of people are like, well, look at Kyle Rittenhouse.
This ain't the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
All right.
I hate to tell everybody this ain't the same thing.
This is not the same incident.
There's not like seven different camera angles on basically one person and what happens there.
There's not survivors that were armed sitting on the bench getting cross-examined going, yeah, no, I did pull the gun on him.
I mean, once that happens, it's not set up that way.
This trial, these trials are set in nebulous terms.
You know, it's not that person shot, that person's dead.
Democracy's under attack, everybody, if you didn't hear.
Did you step outside the lines?
Did you get outside the velvet rope?
I really had to pee, Judge.
They had no urinals.
They had no porta potties throughout all of DC.
Did you see that?
You know, we really had to go to the bathroom.
I mean, that does not make an insurrection trying to get into the buildings that use it can.
So speaking of hours, do you think that these 14,000 hours will be released?
I mean, if there's nothing to hide, obviously, why hide it?
This is such a show.
They're not getting released.
Who was it?
You know, I did making sense of the madness a couple, maybe two, three.
You know, time flies, Todd.
I was out in Virginia, so it was Christmas time.
And he, this gentleman, who I believe he's part of the law team for some of these January 6th defendant, he says he has access to all 14,000 hours, and he's seen things, but he's not allowed to release them.
He said, there's an interview.
I'll have to send it to you.
Can you bring it into court as evidence?
Well, I think he's part of the, I want to say he's one of the lawyers.
He's one of the representatives.
He should have access through discovery.
I believe he does, but he can't, you know, give if he'd have to do a WikiLeague style dump.
I'm not even worried about that this second.
I mean, hopefully, for the purpose of the guy who's the defendant, actually, the word defendant is a terrible word.
It's the accused is what it is, but defendant makes it sound like you're going to defend yourself when actually they should prove you're guilty before you defend yourself.
They need to prove you were guilty.
You're the accused.
But anyway, for the accused, if he has access to that footage, then he could bring it in and the jury can see exculpatory evidence.
That would be killer.
Yeah, but I think that he's limited into even one.
Let me see if I can find.
I'm trying to think.
Where was I?
There's Randy Ireland.
I want to say, was I home when I did those interviews?
See, I'm boring people now.
It's all right.
That's fine.
Fuck.
Pulling it together.
Here it is.
Yeah, no, no, this is the guy, Trentis Evans.
Trentis Evans.
I'm not sure.
You know what?
I'll do a little search really here.
Trentis Evans in January.
Do it live.
Yeah, we do it live, sort of.
Trent Evans, but I did at least a half an hour with him.
And let's see.
And so, what's happening with the Ray Epsons of the world?
Are those guys just get a free pass?
They're bye-bye.
I mean, he was sentenced to three years of probation.
So he already.
Yes, he did.
So what?
Part taking part in January 6th, I think.
Okay.
All right.
So he got a little slap on the hand.
Three years probation.
Yeah.
And who, and who, I forget what exactly it was he had.
There's his court case right there for disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.
So, yeah, he got three years probation for that.
So he might, I think maybe through being a defendant, he had access.
I'd have to go back to the interview.
It was, let's see, probably, it was just before Christmas.
So I will look up the trend.
It's on Rumble if people want to see it.
I don't know if I published that one on Rockpin or not.
It might be on Rockpin.
I want to move on, though, Todd.
Yes.
Okay.
And I want to get to these two stories that are pretty important.
Flu, Ivermectin, and Doctors' Concerns00:15:38
You've got this one up on the RC reader.
Iowa doctor and former South accusing boards of unlawfully endangering Iowans.
And you won't see it in the national news, although you should.
Just days ago, Syracuse judge strikes down New York vaccine mandate for health workers.
Rules state overstepped its authority and said had no basis to do so, especially in retrospect when, in fact, it does not stop the spread.
This is over at Syracuse.com.
Again, should be a national news story.
It's barely being whispered, Mr. McGreevy.
Dr. David Hart Such, former state senator David Hart Such here in Davenport, Iowa, is filed suit just before Christmas.
Optically, bad time to do it if you want to get some press, but he did get it in.
He got it filed in Scott County, and he is suing the Iowa Medical Board and the Iowa Pharmacy Board together for them to actually uphold the law and operate lawfully because they're operating unlawfully when they are dictating to pharmacists and doctors to not allow doctors to prescribe ivermectin and hydrochloroquine.
And he has all kinds of evidence of how they've done this.
And one of his patients went to a pharmacy to get ivermectin and was asked, is this for COVID or this?
And I guess he answered yes.
And he said, this isn't FDA approved by the dose.
There's some gray area about why the pharmacist is wiggling out.
But technically in Iowa, purportedly, according to Dr. Hartsuch, who I trust, the pharmacist isn't allowed to ask about the status of your disease or what this is for necessarily.
I mean, this is, if there's an issue, like this seems kind of hanky.
I don't want to just issue this drug.
You're supposed to call the doctor.
You're not supposed to address the patient and grill them about what they think.
You're supposed to call the doctor.
And that didn't happen in this instance.
And this patient happened to be informed enough about informed consent.
And he filed a complaint against this particular pharmacist with the pharmacy board, which then kicked off a two-week investigation of that pharmacist.
And they ended that investigation and started a nine-month investigation of David Hartsuch because in the interim, David called up that pharmacist and had a discussion with that pharmacist.
And that's when they turned the tables on him and said, no, we're investigating you.
And so at the end of that investigation, where he was, there was, he had no due process.
He had no hearing.
He had to answer all these interrogatories.
And he's really smart, knows what he's doing.
And they came back and said, no, you've got a slap on the wrist.
And here's our ruling against you.
It's secret.
You can't tell anybody what we just ruled against you.
But you maintain your license.
But if you ever want to go for a new license in a new state or you want to get accredited at a different hospital or a different type of practice, you have to disclose that you had this blemish on your record.
So he calls that a scarlet letter, if you will.
Like this is their way of punishing him for informing his patient on how to enforce the law.
Because we need to rewind a little bit here.
There's that whole story there, and that's why he's suing them.
But little do people know that over a year ago, Hart Such petitioned the pharmacy and medical board to change their stance on ivermectin and hydrochloroquine and gave them a bunch of evidence.
This current lawsuit has nothing to do with science, nothing with evidence.
It's everything with due process, everything to do with them following law, First Amendment petition for this grievance, all that stuff.
Prior to that, he did petition and they listened and they changed their rule, they being the pharmacy board's SOPs, what do you want to call it, their admonishment to the pharmacist and said, it's okay to prescribe ivermectin and hydrochloroquine based on Hartsuch's petition with science.
But they refused to issue it to all of the pharmacists, all of the doctors.
And he took them to task and actually had a face-to-face meeting with the head of the Department of Health and Human Services in Iowa, with other legislators there.
There's a lot more behind the scenes that led up to this situation.
And so David is a stalwart patriot in Iowa, and we're lucky to have him here.
And he's saved lots of people's lives with basic, basic, I call it, everybody's got a solution in their kitchen cabinet, frankly, to this coronavirus, the cold, that 99.7% of people survive.
Well, again, the Sherad continues, even though the Poopy Pants puppet was at a car show with the journalists and openly said the pandemic was over.
Karine Jean-Pierre assured us he was just distracted by the pretty cars.
And then he signed on to the emergency that is the COVID-19 pandemic.
Again, we are still under emergency.
And I want to rewind a little bit to what you said.
You talked about the suppression of things like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and the fix being in there.
There's ever more evidence and documentation that obviously that was the case.
A bunch of a real hate and lies campaign about really saving lives and doing what doctors could.
And then people like that who were discussing these solutions amongst others, Budesonide being one of them.
What do they do?
They have a hearing in which they find him guilty of something that we're not even allowed to know about without any real type of due process.
Sometimes they're just going to delicense you.
At least that's what they're trying to do.
What in California through color of law?
And I was recently, I got one segment with her.
I hope to have her on my show, but over on the show, sometimes I host and I go on from this.
We had Sasha Latipova, who was inside the pharmaceutical industry at the highest levels during this, did not understand why the basics were not being deployed and then demonized, and realized that this was all defense department run, defense department driven.
And in fact, this is a campaign that has been going on in a partnership for decades.
And that is how they are actually able to do this to these doctors through color of law, because at the end of the day, you're dealing with edicts, authoritative executive orders through the military industrial complex, Todd.
That is what has enabled this.
And unfortunately, as a culture, first of all, I think that largely most people are ignorant of it.
But even those that are extremely aware of it, like you and myself, and people that speak about this kind of things, we've kind of adjusted to it and acquiesced to it.
yeah yeah um i i mean we're still in an emergency huh i i I guess, wow.
Yeah, you didn't know they reimagined the emergency, Todd.
When did Biden sign the executive order?
Oh, and we'll do it.
Biden signed.
No, I do recall hearing that.
So I'm getting my train of thought back because I was multitasking there.
You said that this decades-long partnership with the DOD is what's enabled the current circumstances.
And I agree with you.
I would add to that that the number one enabler of this would be the media.
The media is the number one enemy and the number one enabler of the uninformed consent, of the tyranny, of the double standards, of the hypocrisy, of the lockdowns, of the people losing their lives and their livelihoods.
And without media malfeasance and cover-up, we would know about all of this.
We would know that DARPA was behind all this.
And it would be widespread and people would be concerned.
And no, they're not going to divulge all that.
that's not going to happen you know um i want i'm uh geez so we we in iowa there's other doctors doing good things too that are under fire And so we're lucky to have that here.
And it's a good thing because when they, you know, have you seen the, oh, geez, Kathleen just sent this to me today.
Maybe you've already talked about it.
It's the SPARS document.
Oh, yeah.
Spars?
Oh, that's old news to Jason Burmes.
We did SPARS episodes two, three years ago.
Whitney Webb's done some really great breakdowns on SPARS.
Alex Jones has actually done a really good SPARS pandemic roundtable mini documentary.
And the SPARS document essentially, first of all, it tells you how they're going to suppress things on social media.
He gives the example of a viral video of a child having an adverse event.
It tells you about basically information management and how things can be proposed as not only misinformation, disinformation, but malinformation.
It talks about subsequent payouts after the facts, et cetera.
Really lays it all down.
It's a lovely document.
And it was the title says 2025 to 2028.
So this is like a whole thing happened.
So it basically gives you the whole layout of three years of when it's no longer deniable that the medicine that they gave you was terrible and had all these adverse events.
Yeah, I mean, it's lovely.
I'm trying to get a date when this was published.
I'm looking forward to it.
I want to say that one is about 2017, perhaps.
You know what?
I'll look it up.
We can totally do that.
We can do that live, kind of.
I've got the document.
It doesn't have it at the beginning.
Let's see if it has it at the end.
Oh, it'll have it.
We'll get it.
2017.
Man, I'm good.
I am just.
Here you go.
I'm Sporton.
2017 right here.
Johnson Hopkins.
This is even more egregious than Event 201.
Well, it's up of a long line, Todd.
You know, I was playing videos of myself when I was working back in Infowars in Texas, 2009, and talking about the swine flu and how they were trying to make it two to three shots even then.
And actually, Meredith Vieira, of all people, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, was pushing back on this.
I have the clip somewhere because we've played it on air.
That was a beta test run, and you didn't have the magic box everywhere that you could really implement it.
So, you know, you look at that.
Lockdown is about that same.
Yeah, lockdown's about that same time period that it's out, that you had the swine flu, and that was kind of a blueprint.
If you look at the old Agenda 2030 documents, right?
The Agenda 21 documents, even the limits of growth, a lot of this stuff is in there.
So, I mean, I think that what you saw with Event 201 in particular, and maybe even the contagion one that none of us are allowed to see.
You know, they showed you 201, 201 was too baseline.
You had, I think you already, if I, here's Jason Burma speculating, okay?
This is me speculating, guys.
Number one, yeah, yeah.
Here's my conspiracy theory.
Number one, it's imagination land to believe that the virus was naturally occurring.
Didn't happen.
It's not real.
Okay.
Everybody.
Manufactured.
Yeah, obviously manufactured.
I think that most adults in the room realize it was at least biologically manufactured.
Now, if you're still believing in Santa Claus and a child and you want to use term cane of function, this is a bio-weapon.
Okay.
So then you have to go to, well, lab leak and cover-up in China.
That's all bullshit.
Okay.
If you look at the real dates, it looks like you have this virus in New York State easily in October.
Okay.
Maybe even before.
Of 19.
Of 19.
When this drill happens, Event 201.
And we're going to get to that in a second.
Yes.
So you have one of the worst flu seasons in the country in modern times.
Everybody can look it up in 2019.
Horrible flu season.
And then in January, you have the outbreaks in China of this thing.
Okay.
Now, when you start talking about it, China actually says, when I say China, China military officials actually blame the United States of dropping a bioweapon on them.
Okay.
At the Wuhan military games.
Okay, just so everybody knows, that's a fact.
They did that.
They claimed that.
Yeah, they made that claim.
I'm not saying we did that.
I'm saying in October, it clearly seems to me this isn't a leak.
This is a seeded bioattack against the whole world.
So you can eventually, when you make tests or whatever, have some plausible deniability.
It's in the populace when you're testing for it.
So now you have this whole attack.
It's probably bad, but at the same time, it dissipates at a rapid pace.
So it's not as virulent, right?
And you may have had a couple rounds of it being seated, by the way.
And what do I mean by seeded?
Literally somebody going in with germ warfare and letting it loose somewhere in its most virulent form.
But here's how viruses actually work.
They get less deadly and virulent as it goes along.
So you have to have this progression of medication suppression at the highest level so you can get ready to inject people with a high-level bioweapon based on the virus.
Okay.
And you also have to say the flu doesn't exist, which they said it just disappeared on the planet.
So you can incorporate the flu and pneumonia and kill those people too because the virus is dissipated.
There's my conspiracy theory.
Don't forget, don't forget, most conventional epidemiological or whatever term you want to use, health practices state, don't inoculate at the height of a pandemic.
Don't start jabbing people while it's at its height because you're going to screw up the inoculation moving forward.
You need to let the natural natural immunity move forward at its own pace.
Well, well, let's talk about that really quick because I think it's important to incorporate that.
Another way that you also just totally gaslight everybody is saying natural immunity doesn't exist.
Oh, yeah.
So you have to also say, on top of all these things, that if you've had it, and even if you've given up your antibodies for the monoclonal antibodies they build, right?
I think it started with an L or something like that.
I forgot what they gave Trump, right?
Not remdesimir.
I mean, you had to actively poison people.
This is out of control.
So what I think happened was the game was out.
They knew they were going to release this thing in October, maybe even September, right?
They needed a war game.
Most of them, I bet you'll find out some of these sons of bitches at the top one day, Todd.
There'll be some obscure article of somebody that worked within the system.
They were on like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin all the way back in September for no apparent reason.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And what's that Canadian doctor?
And I got to find the source on that.
He's the guy that says that after SARS one or whatever it was, it was back in, oh, shoot, the first SARS outbreak in 2000.
Like, yeah, that's manufactured.
Listen, man, they're all bioweapons and they know it.
But what he was saying was that the DOD and all the defense forces in Canada and North America went and said, hey, ivermectin hydrochloroquine is the way to go, guys.
SARS Lessons Unheeded00:01:12
You got to load up on this.
This is how you combat it.
Yeah, no, there's a few government documents that that actually worked for SARS-1.
Todd, we're running on an hour.
Tell everybody where they can go to support your work.
RCReader.com obviously has the best and brightest news stories.
Tell us, tell us.
Well, at least in the quad cities, potentially.
I wouldn't say the best, but yes, thank you.
RCReader.com stands for RiverCitiesReader.com, RCReader.com.
And we encourage you to subscribe for free with your email.
Real quick, easy sign up, or you can support us at rcreader.com slash support.
And you can choose a level.
You can pick a printed subscription level for $48 and we'll mail you a hard copy every month as well.
So either way works.
And we encourage you to spread the word about what we're trying to share.
And we're going to stay on top of the sheriffs.
We've been dealing with sheriffs for a long time.
We have really good sheriffs in the quad cities.
We're very lucky about that.
And we're going to stay on top of this voter, the registration rolls and more.
So, Jason, thanks for showcasing the reader on your network at Red Voice Media.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you, sir.
And thank you guys.
Thumbs it up, subscribe, share.
Thank you for joining redvoicemedia.com/slash uncensored.