Jim Fetzer - The Raw Deal (18 August 2025) with co-host Joe Olson and special featured guest, GR Mobley

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 18, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:57:02

The Raw Deal (18 August 2025) with co-host Joe Olson and special featured guest, GR Mobley

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I need somebody, not just anybody No, I need someone When I was younger, so much younger than today I never needed anybody's help in any way Now but now these days I'm so selfish Now I find a gentleman I'm open love the door Help me if you can,
	I'm feeling that Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal right here on Revolution Radio Studio B. This is 18th of August 2025.
	I have a wonderful guest, DR Mobley, for us to discuss constitutional issues related to a host of matters before the American people.
	But we begin with the Trump-Putin-Alaska summit., which ended with no deal, information liberation described it this way.
	President Trump's meeting with Russian Brett Putin in Alaska ended with seemingly no progress being made in a deal to end the war in Ukraine from the Associated Press.
	President Donald Trump failed to secure an agreement from Vladimir Putin on Friday to end Russia's war in Ukraine, falling short in his most significant move to stop the bloodshed even after rolling out the red carpet.
	Mind you, Vladimir Putin didn't start this.
	The United States started this in 2014 with a coup in Ukraine where Victoria Nuland engineered the deposing of a Russia friendly president of Ukraine to be replaced by a Russian puppet using five billion in American taxpayer dollars.
	I am sick of the American media grossly misrepresent what happened here.
	After the deposition, after the installation of the puppet, Kiev began bombarding artillery barrages on the people of the Donbass, ethnic Russians, Russian-speaking, Russian friendly, they had actually killed as many as two thousand before the intervention by Putin.
	When he understood, when he learned there was about to be an invasion of the Donbass similar to what the Israelis have done in Gaza, to slaughter the Russian people of the Donbass just as Israel is slaughtering, slaughtering the Palestinians in Gaza and for equally impure, grotesque motives.
	Vladimir Putin ought to be viewed as a hero of the nation.
	He has stepped up to defend the Russian people.
	And he's been very kind and gentle in his conduct of the war because so many Ukrainians are indeed of Russian heritage recall.
	Ukraine was a part of Russia.
	Kiev was the first capital of Russia.
	It was only when Nikita Khrushchev, who was himself Ukrainian, declared Ukraine to be an independent state that it was not a part of Russia.
	So there's a colossal amount of ignorance out there, even by websites and sources that ought to know better.
	Meanwhile, Russia is trying to comprehend the various constraints on Trump.
	Alistair Cook writes, If Moscow previously relied on treaties and played normal, now it relies on unpredictability, interconnected fronts and a balance of threats.
	Another round of negotiation between Trump's envoy, Steve Whitkov, and the Russian leadership.
	A meeting between Whitkov and Putin is now imminent.
	At the same time, General Keith Kellogg has been in Kiev, comes as Trump's so-called ultimatum is set to expire, though he himself casts doubts.
	have cast doubt whether the sanctions might follow would bother Putin at all.
	This was actually published on the 15th.
	I think that the Russians don't realize the extent to which Donald Trump is being manipulated by BB Netanyahu, my take.
	And once they do, of course, and needless to say, given their past history and experience with the West, in particular the Minsk Agreement, I can find no reason why Russia should have any faith or confidence in any agreement that could be reached with the West, even the United States.
	My co-hoster, Joe Olson, is here.
	He may be connected.
	Joe, are you able to comment?
	Yes.
	Give you a brief little.
	There's a great website on YouTube called Tales of the American Empire and they've got documentaries and they're like 15 minute long videos with plenty of archival footage and reference notes.
	And one of their series is The Anglo American War on Russia.
	And there's 30 different episodes.
	You can't imagine how long they've been trying to break this into a bunch of little countries so they could balkanize it and go in and asset strip it just like the Bolshevik Stadium.
	But one of the episodes that most Americans are unaware of is the American Expeditionary Force from March 1918 until October 1919.
	5,000 US troops, 14,000 British troops, and 12,000 French troops occupied Murmansk and Archangelsk in Far Eastern Russia to block the Trans-Siberian Railroad from being able to provide supplies to the White Russians so that the Red Russians could win the Bolshevik Revolution.
	So that's what's going on.
	And as far as Ukraine, it was the Jewish people that did the Hallem Door in Ukraine, and it's Jewish oligarchs and a Jewish puppet that they've got for a president right now that's doing another genocide of mostly Christian Orthodox.
	Absolutely.
	Another reason for Russian concern, of course, would be that American bombers are in Europe allegedly to deter Russian aggression, but there hasn't been any Russian aggression.
	There's only been a defense of the Donbass action by the Russians, which where NATO has used the occasion to try to conduct a full scale war against Russia for just the purpose that Joe Adam braided, namely, they want to carve up Russia and loot it for its eighty eight trillion in natural resource value.
	US Air Force B one Lancer aircraft deployed from Dress Air Force Base Texas arrived at Orland Air Base, Norway.
	This is way back on the ninth of August, a week or more ago, but the fact is they have been sent there for alleged training operations with the Allies as part of the latest bomber task force Europe, surely there's no possible way Russia can take that as a peaceful gesture.
	Meanwhile, Colonel McGregor is very upset.
	This tote is capable of feeding you breakfast, lunch, dinner, and yes, even snacks.
	So maybe let's just give our audience a bit of an overview of how you see what's happening on the battlefront.
	We're seeing advancements on the Russian side, especially in the last weeks, but they've been relatively minimal.
	There is one could say a stalemate there.
	Both sides are losing a lot of men, a lot of equipment.
	That's nonsense, Mario.
	Stop wasting my time.
	Stop lying to your audience.
	That's bullshit, okay?
	The Russian losses have dropped to single digits.
	Think about that.
	60, 90 days ago, they were double digits.
	Ukrainian losses are continuously horrific.
	So this is the nonsense that people are repeating on their way into this discussion with the Russians up in Alaska.
	You have no chance of coming to any sort of reasonable outcome when you have distortions on the strategic level of the kind that you've just outlined.
	That's absolutely false, completely wrong.
	Now, You're free to believe it, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to that nonsense because it's just not true.
	Now, you want to know what's going to happen if Donald Trump walks into this meeting with the distorted view that you have just outlined?
	Nothing happens.
	Absolutely nothing happens.
	And I don't think Donald Trump privately believes anything that you've just said.
	I think he knows the truth.
	He's repeating this narrative spun up in London, New York City, and Washington because he thinks he has to, because he's got donors, because he's got globalist European governments in London and Paris and Berlin who keep repeating this nonsense.
	And he feels he has to maintain that fiction.
	But when he sits down at the table, the truth is very, very stark.
	Ukraine is falling apart.
	It's crumbling.
	The Russians aren't inching forward at a thousand meters a day.
	They're finishing off what is left of the Ukrainian army.
	We have always focused on territory.
	The focus of the Russians has never been territory.
	It has been the annihilation of the Ukrainian military threat and the government in Kiev.
	Well, the Ukrainian military threat is just about gone.
	The best that they can do right now is beg, borrow, and steal whatever missiles the Germans, the French, or the British will provide to them, and then hurl them into Russia in the hopes that this will convey the impression in the West that somehow or another they're still alive and well.
	They're not.
	It's over militarily.
	Done.
	The war is ending.
	The question is, what do we want to do about it?
	That's really the issue.
	Now, I'm sorry to interrupt you about this, but I deal with this all the time.
	And Mario, I'm just sick of the lies.
	So I did hear your last interview, you said the same thing.
	It's hard to verify, you know, on the Russian side, they don't release many numbers.
	On the Ukrainian side, obviously, they're going to be very biased.
	British intelligence are saying a thousand men per day are dying on the Russian side.
	But, you know, I just don't know what source to believe because there's no accurate objective figures.
	Could the Russians recruit 35,000 new volunteers to fight in the Russian army every month if they were taking the losses that MI6 insists they're taking?
	How many times do we have to be lied to by the British?
	I mean, we have been manipulated by the British since 1916, 1917.
	We've never gotten through it.
	We continue to be manipulated by the British in London.
	If anything, the Ukraine project has become increasingly an MI6 project supported by London.
	I think, again, Donald Trump knows this privately.
	The question for him as an American president is, how do you get out of this?
	And I think he'd like to get out.
	Just as he once made it very clear to me and others, he wants to get our troops out of Iraq, out of Syria.
	He ultimately wanted to get us out of Germany.
	I think, Inwardly, Donald Trump is the same way.
	The other thing is, and something that nobody's paying attention to, is that Donald Trump is turning increasingly to the serious problems we have in the United States.
	That's why he sent the National Guard and, you know, federal marshals and others into Washington, D.C. The crime statistics that are published publicly are nonsense.
	It's much worse.
	And he knows that.
	He's also privately ashamed, as many Americans are like me, that our capital is such a disgrace.
	It is a disgrace.
	And somebody said, well, there are fewer rapes and murders and thefts and assaults.
	I said, look, first of all, I don't believe that.
	Secondly, one murder, one rape, one assault in Washington, D.C., and I remember it because I'm old enough now, was a place that in 1960 you could walk from one end to the other without fear of anything.
	That's how bad it is.
	So I see him turning inwardly.
	He's turning inwardly because he's got enormous problems with criminality.
	He's got enormous problems with finding ways to create employment.
	He's got problems with millions and millions of illegal aliens that he has to find a way to deport.
	It's overwhelming.
	And so he's looking at what's going on in Ukraine.
	And truthfully, that war is over.
	It's lost.
	Ukrainians are being annihilated.
	Each passing day, it gets worse.
	So what do you do?
	What's the answer?
	Do you go in and demand a ceasefire?
	Come on.
	That's absurd.
	It's not going to happen.
	Colonel McGregor is so good on all these issues.
	I'm going to ask Joe if he'd like comments and then our featured guest for today.
	Joe, did you want to add further comments?
	Yeah, let's talk about one of the arms of our nuclear triad, and that's his silly bombers.
	The B-1 bombers, maximum speed is 950 miles per hour, but cruises, is 647 we've got 45 of those active total uh b2 bombers the big stealth thing yeah maximum speed 628 but it can't fly that.
	It has to fly 560 for cruise speed.
	We built 20 of those at $2 billion piece.
	Two of them self-destructed.
	So we've only got 18 of those active.
	B-52, we've got 72 of those active.
	And all of those are flying targets in the realm of microwave radars, satellites, and hypersonic missiles.
	None of them are going to be useful to do anything other than just be targets.
	It's ridiculous that he sits there and rattles this goofy lightsaber that isn't able to cut through a slice of butter.
	It's absolutely insane that the people in this country that are in the leadership position still think we have military superiority when it's obvious from Ukraine, obvious from Afghanistan, obvious from Iran that we do not have a dominance like we pretend to have.
	Oh, I couldn't agree more.
	GR, would you like to add thoughts of your own, please?
	So, our geopolitical situation and the way we have, I'll just say, excuse the expression, bastardized what the constitution allows the federal government to do over unconstitutional acts over well over the past two centuries.ies, we are in a situation where we're involved in foreign entanglements that the Constitution does not allow us to be involved in, period.
	So I don't know where you want to start?
	I mean, do you want to start and continually dealing with this or do you want to look at what is what we're really supposed to have based on the Constitution?
	Oh, I'm all with you, GR.
	We're going to pursue that.
	Okay.
	So the Constitution gave Congress the authority to form an army.
	The process in the Constitution to do that is to call forth the militia to federalize them them for one of three purposes, to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections or to repel invasions.
	There has been no amendment to the Constitution to be involved in, you know, stabilizing any part of the nation.
	There's never been any amendment to get us involved in foreign wars or to ever send the army off of American soil.
	The execution of laws suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions is all done within the United States.
	And as a matter of fact, during the ratification debates, the states were very concerned about sending their troops or their.
	their militia out across the United States to another state for long periods of time.
	They didn't even want them going that far.
	So this is excellent.
	Go ahead.
	I'm sorry.
	This is excellent.
	You are.
	I appreciate all that.
	Now I want to add the following.
	Trump may be turning to American problems as Colonel McGregor observes.
	He's completely out of his depth in regard to foreign issues.
	He promised to end these stupid wars.
	He hasn't a clue about how to do it.
	It didn't happen.
	Could have cut off weapons and supplies to Ukraine, which now JD Vance has said we actually have done or we are about to do, though I've yet to see the effects.
	The situation, the slaughter in Gaza, he supports.
	He actually told Israel just to get the job done, to do it faster, kill all the Palestinians more efficiently.
	Not only has he not ended those conflicts, but he has increased our involvement in yet another by participating in the bombing of Iran.
	So I find him a complete disaster, a contradiction to every policy, campaign done in foreign.
	Now, because of his Epstein entanglements, He's trying to find ways to pacify his base where I think he's already lost about half of the makeup movement over the Foreign Wars and Epstein by doing good things he promised to do.
	I'm all happy for him to do the right thing even if it's for the wrong reason, but I'm under no illusions that he isn't all in for Israel and he's not putting America first but last.
	GR, your thoughts.
	So the one thing that would actually change our paradigm regarding foreign affairs would literally be instead of saying we're going to support any wars or regime changes,
	the constitution allows new states to be admitted into the union that doesn't limit states within a geographical region of a hemisphere, latitudes or anything else.
	There's no reason why the United States constitution didn't move forward other than the fact that playing the nationalism game was actually preparing everything for the League of Nations and then the UN so that they could get away from the conf constitution and actually provide freedom for the people and subjugating the world.
	So when we look at what Trump could have done in 2016 by offering statehood to Hong Kong, statehood to Crimea, statehood or at least offering them to choose whether they wanted to become subjects or whether they wanted to actually be on the road to becoming a territory, they wouldn't become a state like that.
	There would be a process in this.
	But just imagine if we did the same thing with Ukraine.
	We don't give any assistance until some state actually says by their own voice of the people, we want to become a state.
	in the United States.
	We have no constitutional authority to be involved in the UN or any type of treaty like that.
	It's not within the constitution.
	So if we're looking at the constitutional solutions, because I could always talk about the wrong things and doing more wrong things, but to get us on the right track, we have to live within the delegated powers and we have to teach people what those are.
	Yes, yes, yes, yes.
	I'm fascinated what imagination to think of a Vavrign state in Hong Kongong or Crimea.
	Joe, your thoughts, Joe.
	Yeah, following the debacle in Vietnam, we had the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973, and the president's only authorized to use force for a limited period of time.
	But since then, we've not declared war as the constitution requires, and we've been involved in numerous wars ever since, virtually continuous wars since Vietnam.
	So it's kind of ridiculous that we have a constitution that nobody in our elected Congress decides that they want to enforce.
	It's absolutely insane.
	So actually, if I can interrupt real quick, it's not Congress' job to enforce the Constitution.
	It is the state legislature's job to enforce the Constitution.
	If you're familiar with Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison got both Kentucky and Virginia to stand up against the federal tyranny of the Alien and Sedition Acts, they basically called upon all the states to join together to do what we call today Republic Review, to actually get a tribunal of the states to say, you have no authority to do these things, either you shut these down or we're going to start pulling you out of Congress and replacing you with people that will actually do their job.
	It's fascinating.
	I mean, you know, traditionally, of course, we got the constitutionally three branches.
	The legislature passes a law, executive enforces them, and the judiciary interprets them.
	You're suggesting the role for state legislatures to enforce the constitution.
	Please spell that out, GR.
	I want to understand.
	So it's simple, but it there's five critical documents that people need to read.
	It's the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
	This is where Madison states that the state legislatures are not only obligated, they're duty bound to interpose.
	If you understand the word interpose, that means seize and stop the progress of ego.
	And so they're duty bound to actually interpose upon the United States or Congress, the president or even the judiciary or all of them or all above and force them into compliance.
	Whose compact is it?
	It's not the federal government.
	The federal government is the creature of the compact.
	When states join the Union, they're doing one to many to the states.
	They're basically committing to the fellow states that we're going to abide by those legal things that come out of or in pursuit of the Constitution, and we're going to hold this creature accountable, but they have failed to do that because every time the creature comes around, it usually leads with money to corrupt like the assumption acts and the bank act in 1792 and later, those things literally corrupted the states.
	That's why they didn't hold them accountable, which is what anyway, I could go in, but those those resolutions are very clear.
	I'm just delighted to have you here, Joe.
	You got things you want to add.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, well, we can blame part of this on Woodrow Wilson and his rotten Congress that passed the 17th Amendment used to be that the state legislatures picked the.
	Pick the senators and the senators' terms were limited to six years, but they could be revoked at any time.
	So if you had a bunch of senators that were not doing what they wanted to do, the state legislature could convene and pick a new senator and get rid of that SOB.
	The problem now is that you got a senator that sits there and is rotten for four or five years.
	If he's decent the last year, he can get enough money to win his reelection and never be able to get voted out.
	We have an incumbent of idiocy.
	Look at Lindsey Graham as an example.
	This guy is so awful.
	He's so destructive.
	This guy should have been given the toss decades ago, it appears.
	GR, more you want to add on this because we're going to.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So that's all.
	Constitutional issues, the whole show.
	Absolutely.
	So thank you.
	So I actually wrote an article that's the truth about the seventeenth Amendment.
	The seventeenth Amendment never denied the state legislatures their suffrage in the Senate.
	As a matter of fact, if you read the seventeenth Amendment, it only changed the process of selection and the process of replacement.
	That's it.
	It didn't change their roles, responsibilities or duties, nor did it deny the states their equal suffrage in the Senate.
	Suffrage.
	That means the senators are to vote as instructed by the state legislature.
	Did you know that that's galvanized in the Constitution?
	Go read Article 5.
	And in Article 5 of the Constitution, it's at the very end, it's called an Amendment Protection Clause.
	Google Amendment Protection Clause and you'll find nothing.
	And the interesting thing behind this Amendment Protection Clause, it was basically created because of the two major problems during the Constitutional Convention, where the states wanted to maintain their sovereignty and their suffrage within the government, which basically created the second second clause.
	The other clause was about apportionment and representation for slaves and the importation of slaves.
	So the compromise of august 22, that of 1787 was to basically after twenty years of allowing the importation of slaves, the federal government would be able to regulate them and shut it down in eighteen oh eight.
	So the first amendment protection clause in Article V is that as long as no amendment be made to stop the shutting down of the slave trade, I'm parafrasing, and the second amendment protection clause is that no state would lose its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.
	The Senate did not ask for that consent.
	gr hold that thought we'll continue with gr mobley and joe olson right after this spring
	so We're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	We'll be right back.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you.
	Yes.
	Yes, you that keeps the station in front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio.
	Radio every Wednesday 8pm Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomsteps.com, the People Station.
	you.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, listeners, or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com.
	100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Thank you.
	GR, go ahead, complete your thoughts.
	All right, thank you.
	The 17th Amendment, there's no boogeyman there.
	It only changed.
	And as a matter of fact, this was a progressive ploy where progressive states were.
	deliberately not seeding their senators.
	So they asked, well, let's change the method from the state legislatures because they were deliberately not seeding their legislatures to help pass the 17th Amendment.
	There's a bunch of questions whether it was legitimately ratified, but it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter if it was or not.
	It didn't create a boogeyman.
	It only changed the process of the selection of senators.
	It did not change their responsibility in giving the states their suffrage.
	To understand that word suffrage, that means their vote.
	Our representatives in the House of Representatives are to vote based on their vote based on their constituents and they're supposed to, based on the Constitution, only represent thirty thousand people.
	Not a half, the half, actually it's like three quarters of a million today.
	They've been, they've been making it up as they go along because they're not abiding by the Constitution.
	But nevertheless, the Senate, the state legislatures have full control and they've stopped asking because they've become so illiterate.
	GR, look, there are different questions here.
	You're talking about whether the Senate is acting responsibly and in knowledge of the Constitution, which they are not, agreed.
	The seventeenth Amendment, as I understand, shifted the selection of senators from the state legislatures to the people and included the allowance they could serve more than one term.
	I think those were both bad moves.
	Joe thinks they were bad moves.
	What do you think?
	So no, no, I don't think it was a bad move because the state legislatures are the ones to hold them accountable.
	The state legislatures are the ones to say, you have to vote this way.
	If you don't, we will recall you because they are obligated by the constitution, this oath that they take, the raising of their hand, they're going to support the constitution and they have to give that state legislature their suffrage.
	GR, are you telling me that even though the people elect them, the legislatures can recall them?
	Yes, because in Article V of the US Constitution, it demands that those state senators provide the votes that the state legislature gives them and directs them.
	But GR, suppose that were the case, you'd have to go since there's voting by the people, you'd have to have a whole bloody another election.
	Not at all.
	The beauty of the old system, as I see it, is that the legislatures knew who the hell would be good to rubber is at the stake, that it was different than the popular vote for the members of the House, and that they could pull them back.
	if they were doing what was in the best interest of the state and the judgment of the legislature.
	But they can still do that.
	They can still pull them back if they refuse.
	See, we live in a world today, doctor Fetzer, that we can just like we fight real-time wars, we have the ability to have real-time governance.
	In other words, those who are supposed to be giving us our suffrage in the House are the people, and in the Senate, it's the state legislatures.
	There's no reason why the state legislatures don't pick up the phone and say, you know, we've just had a consensus, you better vote this way.
	We're watching what you're saying, shut up, and this is how we want you to vote.
	And if you don't vote that way, we will pull you back like that.
	And right now in the constitution, there's teeth to do that.
	Joe, did you want to add a thought?
	Yeah, let me see if I got my okay, yeah, my mic, son.
	Can you name one instance when a state legislature has ever threatened to recall a single senator?
	What about Barbara Boxer that they rolled in in a wheelchair, put the vote button in her hand and somebody had to push her thumb on it to be able to vote.
	That person did not deserve to be in the Senate.
	And when they're filled with Octarian zombies, they're doing the same damn thing.
	McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, they're all freaking.
	idiots and they all deserve to be removed from office and nothing has been done against any of these people in the history of our country.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't care if it's in Article 5.
	Prepared to have this particular argument today.
	This was last minute, last minute, Ed, but I'm glad you're here because this is a wonderful discussion to be having.
	Thank you.
	So the problem isn't whether the senators know what they're supposed to do.
	The problem is our illiteracy.
	Those state legislatures who equally have to take a oath to the Constitution should actually know what's in it and should actually understand in Article 5.
	They have protected suffrage.
	They should be able to direct those guys and if they don't in the constitution, they have the ability to remove them and ban them for life, ban them for life from being in public service.
	That's in the constitution because we're so illiterate, we've just been accepting what they've been telling us, oh, that they can't, then they're not going to vote this way.
	So when we start looking at whether there's a real boogeyman, because technically I even wrote an article about the truth of the seventeenth amendment.
	And back in 2018, I wrote an article that literally articulated that we don't need to repeal the seventeenth amendment, we can send it.
	The federal government opened the door to allow this is the only amendment that they've actually allowed a state to change its position in 2010.
	Delaware, because that's where the Dolt Biden's from, and as the vice president, he finally realized that Delaware actually rejected the seventeenth amendment in 2013.
	So he told them that you need to formally change your vote and reject it and allow or actually ratify that amendment.
	And the Congress allowed actually opened the door to allow every state in the union to do the same.
	The door has to swing both ways.
	So that means that Oklahoma and all of these states that have had all this rhetoric saying, hey, we don't like this, they actually have a legal opportunity to rescind their ratification and reject the seventeenth amendment.
	Same thing with Texas.
	We only need six states to do that, and then instantly that amendment would go away because the language was never there, but the federal government actually allowed it to be changed.
	And so bottom line, it is an open door for states to start rescinding it.
	But more importantly, if we start getting educated, the Seventeenth Amendment did not take the state legislature suffrage.
	It's clear.
	It's about literacy on the Constitution.
	It's really not about, you know, because that's our biggest problem.
	Our illiteracy is allowing us to be destroyed as a nation and be subjugated into the global plan.
	These are great points.
	I love it.
	Absolutely love it.
	Let me bring us back to another issue which I think is our biggest problem today, namely, drop down.
	Believe it or not, Donald Trump has decided to punish states that are choosing to boycott Israel in any way, shape or form, apparently.
	Conservative Candace Owens wrote on X, Trump has fully betrayed America for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and if you can't see that now, you're completely blind.
	This is what Israel doesn't want you to see.
	This is why they didn't want to allow Western journalists to come into Gaza, because then they would have to show you this.
	Now this is ITV news.
	When we joined an airdrop last week, Israel also tried to restrict images from above being filmed or shown.
	Did you hear what she said?
	She said Israel tried to restrict images being filmed from above because they don't want you to see it.
	That was all done by Israel.
	That's not Hamas.
	It's about this unending support for Israel to the point where you are willing to punish Americans so that they can consider their genocidal project.
	So it's not just that we don't want the FEMA funds to be withheld.
	It is also that we want to end to a genocide.
	We want to end to the occupation.
	We want to end to this sick, psychotic relationship with Israel.
	And this is why I say we need to push and move towards public banking.
	And I think a lot of the states.
	are going to have to have a wake up call here.
	You don't know what's going to happen in the future.
	States should not be punished because they choose to boycott this insane genocidal country.
	I could not agree more.
	GR, give us your thoughts first and we'll go to you.
	Absolutely.
	So the states are free to allow what they want in.
	As a matter of fact, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution only allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the states.
	Not the they have the full cognizance of deciding what they want to bring in.
	Now the federal government does have the ability to actually create tariffs, boycotts or whatever because they are the ones that control commerce coming in and out of the United States, period.
	But when we look at the commerce clause, the states can, but they can't bypass.
	It's just like the states are going out and signing up with the World Trade Organization or I should say the WHO, the Paris Accords, those types of things.
	And they're forbidden from being able to join international agreements.
	But what Trump is doing is absolutely unconstitutional.
	He has really no authority to dictate to the states what they're doing.
	Does that make sense?
	Well, that's we're here for your interpretation, Joe, your authority.
	No, it's actually what the constitution states.
	The federal government does have the ability to determine what, you know, we don't have to allow trade with China.
	As a matter of fact, we should never allow trade with China.
	When Nixon opened that door, he basically started the subsidizing of communism in China.
	But the federal government and the president, he does have the control over the foreign affairs and can actually tend or basically say we're not doing trade with this nation.
	GR, let me let me get clear on this.
	We're talking, I'm interested in the war power authority.
	The president doesn't have the right to declare war.
	That's left to the Congress.
	The Congress can declare war.
	We've had a whole series, I mean, hundreds of military interventions by the United States that were not accompanied by any declaration of war.
	Right.
	And for political reasons, the last thing he would want to do is declare war on Palestine or even, in my opinion, declare war on Russia.
	So he seems eager to declare war on Iran, which is ludicrous, but it looks like that's what maybe he has has lined up for us at Israel.
	The US is going to attack Iran again.
	Address that, please.
	So the president, one, does not have the authority to actually engage or conduct a war, declare war, but he does have the ability to protect American interests.
	When you look at Thomas Jefferson, when he actually sent the Marines and the Navy because they were basically seized and captured in Tripoli, he sent the Navy to go free them because they he does have a responsibility over the flowing of our commerce as well as protecting our interests.
	However, that's not basically protecting that interest.
	There's no proof of interest in Israel.
	There's no proof of interest in all of these other actions that they've been taking.
	The real problem was in the Whiskey Rebellion when George Washington dragged his feet and when Congress wanted to call forth the militia in 1792 to basically suppress that insurrection in West Pennsylvania and actually in the Western Territory.
	And so Washington said, No, I don't want to do that.
	And he took two years before he called forth the militia.
	What Congress did was they unconstitutionally abjugated the responsibility out of respect for President Washington and said, we're just going to write a blank check and when you want to call them up, you can have them.
	And then after that, they basically started continuing to do that.
	That is unconstitutional.
	The Constitution is clear.
	The militia comes forth when Congress calls them, that's it, and they have to declare war or they have to because they actually can call forth the militia and create the federalized army to execute the laws of the Union, which is what they did with the whiskey rebellion.
	They actually were out enforcing federal law of the taxation on distilled liquor.
	So bottom line.
	The Congress has to do this.
	The army shouldn't even exist.
	The actually, when we look at the structure of the Department of Defense, our only constitutional strategic defense is the Navy.
	They are responsible for protecting us from all external threats.
	No air force, no army, no space force.
	The Coast Guard is kind of within that and should be a part of the Navy as well, because it doesn't even allocate for the Coast Guard in the Constitution.
	That's right.
	I just love all this considering that the problem with the war powers and the President's authority go back to 1792.
	is mind-bending.
	Joe, your thoughts.
	Now, last time we declared war, I believe it was in 1943, and I can't remember the two parties.
	I want to say Austria, but they were already part of Germany, so I don't know if that was it.
	But one of them certainly was Hungary, and Hungary was in a difficult position.
	They had Nazis on one side and Communists on the other, and they were going to have to be drugged into the fight one way or the other.
	So they ended up joining the Nazis, and that's the last time we didn't declare war in Korea, Vietnam, and nowhere since then have we declared war.
	We've done authorized use of force.
	And then the other thing, getting back to the Senate thing, just one little final note.
	Final note, we had the Citizens United versus the FEC ruling in a split 54 court decision in 2010 that said money is free speech.
	So the more money you get and the more money you give, the more free speech you have.
	And that has allowed our elections to be not monopolized by packs that represent things that are completely different than what the people of the United States have.
	And we should definitely do something to overturn that ridiculous Supreme Court ruling too.
	Well, so just to add to that, so the Supreme Court has no constitutional aut authority to interpret law.
	They have no constitutional authority to use case law and precedents.
	The only thing that The Constitution authorizes them to do is to basically judge cases based on law and fact and only cases that arise under the Constitution.
	So when the Supreme Court began actually opening up their jurisdiction, which was in 1800 with Marbury v.
	Madison, and it's not that that didn't arise under the Constitution, it's something that the Supreme Court actually reached actively because the Supreme Court doesn't even have the power to ability to say, we want to bring this case up so that we can use it, so we can bend the law.
	The Constitution is a compact.
	Its definitions are legally binding that were provided in the ratification debates.
	If I sell you, Joe, a car and I stipulate that if you buy this car today as the person authorized to sell this car, I say, if you buy this car today, I will throw in a car wash and wax every year or every week you own the car.
	So you go, okay, we shake hands, you pay me, you sign this little, you know, title agreement that you're going to register the car, license it, and you do all the things.
	that abide by the state law.
	You come back the next week and say, I want my car washed.
	And I say, shoot, we didn't put that in the contract.
	It doesn't matter.
	I verbally stated it.
	That means it's been stipulated.
	Your obligation is to prove I said that.
	So when we look at the ratification debates and how they stipulated that compact to the states, because the states had what does ratify mean?
	It's the formal process of accepting a contract.
	So when they stipulated and clarified what each of those clauses meant, those became legally binding in contract law.
	This is one of the things that Madison spent the rest of his life trying to teach the nation that these ratification debates are the key to understanding this constitution.
	He literally stated that several times in Congress, and he stated that in other formal documents, both in the Kentucky resolutions with the Kentucky or the Virginia resolutions with the Virginia State Legislature, his response to them, and in some of his personal writings.
	As we really start looking, the constitution is a compact.
	The states have the ability to actually audit that compact and say, where did you get the authority to do all these things?
	By the way, that debt, that entire debt clock is fraud.
	Every penny that they spend on something they have no authority to spend on, it's fraud.
	It doesn't legitimize it.
	Does that make sense?
	GR, is it somehow dismissable of, can we claim it's not a debt that's legitimately owed, that it's a figment of the imagination as it were?
	Can we?
	The law actually supports this whole concept.
	As a matter of fact, there was an action in Washington State where a bureaucracy did who didn't have the authority to actually go and get an RFPFP request for bids proposals and basically awarded a contract to a contractor regarding a nuclear power facility.
	This contractor started executing and actually spent like a couple million dollars in the laying of the foundation and doing stuff.
	They came and said, hey, you need to pay us.
	And then the bureaucracy went over to the treasurer or whoever and they said, hey, you don't have the authority to do this.
	We're not paying for this.
	And then the contractor sued the state and basically the court came back and said, look, you made a deal with an entity that didn't have the authority to give you that deal.
	And it's the same thing., when foreign countries come along and they have a legal obligation to determine whether this debt is going to be used for something that's legitimate and it's not, then they are basically out in the wind along with all of those people that are committing fraud.
	If they want their pound of flesh, we send them Obama.
	We send them all these people that have been a part of this huge unconstitutional conspiracy of undermining us and selling us out.
	Love it, GR.
	I love it.
	Joey, further thoughts of yours.
	Now I have to agree, this is really a fun discussion.
	What do you think about the right of imminent domain in the case of the Walmart that sued the people to take their land and then ended up building nothing?
	That was a ridiculous Supreme Court ruling as well.
	So the Supreme Court, so does the building of Walmart arise under the Constitution?
	I would say no.
	And so if, if, and what we're really looking at because the Supreme Court has constantly constantly created laws that they had no authority to be involved in, whether it be Roe v Wade, whether it be the Labor, the sick chicken, do they have any constitutionality?
	constitutional authority over labor or housing or the environment.
	They have a revolving door allowing everything under the sun to come in so that they can move America in the way they want to.
	And they have been the real cause and the crux of our problem.
	So where did this idea of interpretation and writing law and being able to use case law and so forth come out of the Federalist Papers?
	And as a matter of fact, I can't believe that nobody has ever challenged the Federalist Papers.
	First of all, they were only to help New York.
	the rest of the states.
	Plus, they were editorials.
	They were not formal testimony in the ratification debates.
	As I asserted, only the ratification debates are the legally binding documents.
	So how is it that the Federalist Papers were injected?
	Well, Hamilton had a really good friend and his name was John Marshall.
	And so John Marshall actually walked in and he sat there and they started using the Federalist Papers and they deliberately obviated the ratification debates.
	And oh, by the way, the last eight Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution was actually being ratified by at that point in time was being ratified by New Hampshire and Madison, not Madison, Hamilton already got the word from Gary that they were going to rubber stamp it.
	So he just started writing all the Federalist papers regarding the judiciary.
	And that's where you find the concept of interpretation that they'll actually be able to create the standards of law when they don't.
	They don't have that authority in the Constitution.
	So almost every law that they created is all unconstitutional.
	So they had no legislative authority.
	TR, I take it.
	Your position is on one side of the political or legal spectrum about these issues.
	Is there a name for the position or the movement you represent in terms of interpreting the Constitution?
	So the movement.
	So I created a website called Reclaiming the Republic and I work with organizations whether they're actually the party because I work with the Wyoming State Party, the Republican Party.
	I work with any group that wants to demand full compliance of the Constitution.
	So I'm not an organization.
	I'm here to provide everybody the insights of how and what we need to do to get this back.
	GR, I love all this.
	I find it fascinating that the importance of the ratification debates versus federalist papers, that's huge.
	Would it be correct to say your position is broadly libertarian?
	Well, so no, because the libertarians is so when you look at the political parties, there's not one of them that is actually saying full compliance.
	So when I actually I spoke to the Constitution Party and I said, well, you guys have constitution in your name.
	Why don't you become constitutional?
	They actually don't have a demand.
	where everything that is in that constitution is the only thing the federal government could do, and anything they spend money on or do outside of that is a violation.
	We've got to hold them accountable.
	It's the same thing with the states, by the way.
	Many states have actually modified, and as, by the way, the biggest atrocity the federal government has committed, or I should say the court, was the wiping out of the counties in the 1960s with the one person, one vote rule.
	This is how they literally restructured the political structure of the states into legislative districts instead of using counties.
	This was a huge architectural and nobody even recognizedzes this is one thing, I'll just say this now.
	If Trump actually went after the court and said, you have no legislative authority.
	What you did in Baker v Carr, Reynolds v Sims, and actually created this one person, one vote rule that was all unconstitutional, and then told the states, you can go back and you need to go back and use your counties because the court had no authority to restructure your constitution.
	That would make every state in the union purple if it's blue, and actually make some of the blue states red because it would go back away from legislative districts where population centers now control the majority of representation.
	If you look at the county maps, there's more there's not one state in the union that I think is really more blue counties.
	There are more red counties, which means every state senate, every state senate would turn red.
	California red as far as the Senate goes.
	In other words, you now have this, this opposing factions between the state house and the state senate.
	And GR, how did that happen?
	How did it happen?
	So there was a rule, there was a case that got into the federal court where they had no jurisdiction where an individual was claiming they didn't have equal representation in their county because they had more people in their county in comparison to the other rural counties.
	Well, states are made up as a republic and each county has its own interest just like the United States has its own interest of all the states.
	So bottom line, they said, Hey, every person should have equal voice in their vote, and so we want to make everything.
	This literally created a democracy out of America.
	Out of a republic.
	Well, so we're supposed to be republican in form, not a democracy, correct.
	I tend to call it a democratic republic, but.
	As a matter of fact, almost every state in the union or in the world today are constitutional republics.
	So we make a big misnomer to say, well, it's great to be a constitutional republic.
	Well, no, it's so let me give you this one because I have a couple of seconds here.
	Their constitutions are powerful.
	You don't even have a couple of seconds, but you will.
	So constitutions are powers of attorney.
	We will when we return with GR Mobley and Joe Olson stand by.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a drill, this is a drill on bullhoards during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute, in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tomb.
	They used amputed actors and a studio quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston either.
	Available on moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do.
	And we must fight back!
	You can torture us and bomb us, fire is catching.
	And if we burn, you burn with us.
	Karina.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	The time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire country existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming.
	And it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio freedomslips dot com comma the number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio.
	It is no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda.
	Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half truths, and because of this essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
	Join Dr. Ott every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
	Easton and learn why The Story Behind The Story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
	That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
	Music.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs and its website by the hosts, guests and call in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and Freedomslips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Revolution Radio I cited Lindsey Graham as an example of someone who no longer belongs in the Senate long since should have been given the boot for further confirmation information.
	Lindsey Graham, God will pull the plug on us if we don't support Israel.
	Can you believe?
	South Carolina Lindsey Graham on Wednesday warned that if America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us.
	What kind of lunatic is this?
	I'm not going to let that happen.
	But tonight, it's late at night, Israel is in a fight for their lives.
	Our friends in Israel are surrounded by people who would kill them all if they could.
	I am tired of the word genocide.
	Let me tell you about genocide.
	If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they could.
	They have the capability to do that.
	They choose not to.
	Hamas, they would commit genocide in 30 seconds.
	They just can't.
	And that's the big difference, folks.
	To people in my party, I'm tired of this crap.
	Israel is our friend.
	They're the most reliable friend we have in the Middle East.
	They're a democracy surrounded by people who would cut their throats if they could.
	This is not a hard choice.ice if you're an American.
	It's not a hard choice if you're a Christian, a word of warning.
	If America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us.
	And we're not going to let that happen.
	So I just want to end with this thought that President Trump has stood with Israel at the most difficult time since its founding.
	October 7 was an effort to destroy the state of Israel.
	The largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust.
	And here we are almost two years later, and Israel's the bad guy.
	That's ridiculous.
	Israel is not the bad guyys are the radical Islamists who would kill everyone in this room if they could.
	So I haven't lost my vision of right and wrong.
	When it comes to foreign policy, President Trump has stood up for all the right things and he stood up against wrong things, just like Reagan.
	But tonight it's late at night.
	Unbelievable rubbish from Lindsey Grant.
	Everything he's saying there is false.
	The truth is roughly the opposite of everything he asserted.
	Israel is the bad guyys, the Muslims, the Islamicists, the Palestinians are not the bad guys.
	Israel is sliding everyone's throat.
	Israel is committing a genocide.
	He said if they wanted they could.
	Well, they are doing it and the world is standing by passively allowing it to happen.
	This is as repulsive as it gets.
	Lindsey Graham, damn you to hell.
	My thoughts.
	Joe, yours.
	Yeah, well, I'll get to Flimsy Graham in a second.
	I want to put a final cap on what we were talking about on imminent threats.
	We're going to return to that, Joe.
	Dude, that's first, the other order.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	Super.
	Yeah, this is a result of the Schofield Bible, the evangelicals and something called dispensationalism.
	And these people have convinced themselves that every Jewish person is a direct representative of God and everything that they say cannot be challenged.
	And that the only way you can get to heaven is by being obedient to your Jewish masters.
	And that is a really sick theology.
	And I see it all the time.
	I tell you, the people I know that are like evangelical Christians, man, if you say one word against Israel or anything that Israel is doing, it's like they look at you like blasphemy, like you're going to go straight to hell.
	And it's like ridiculous.
	These people have lost any perspective on what humanity is and how inhumane this one particular tribe has been for 3,000 years.
	They have two separate books, just like every other crime syndicate has.
	They have one that's their public book, that's the Torah.
	Then they got the Talmud, which tells them all the evil, wicked things that they're allowed to do to all the goem on the planet.
	And that's exactly what they've been doing for 3,000 years, which is exactly why they've been kicked out of 109 countries.
	And they're going to be kicked out of a whole lot more really soon.
	Okay, Joe.
	Good, good, good, good, good.
	Now, do you want to return to the other?
	issues, go right ahead.
	Okay, yeah, just briefly, the eminent domain was under the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment.
	And this was a Kilo versus New London, a 2005 Supreme Court decision, and it was a 5-4 decision.
	And they said, yeah.
	The public good is better served by having a Walmart than having a bunch of individual residential houses.
	And they'd already bought up portions of an old residential subdivision, but there were a couple of people that were holding out and they wanted to be able to steal their property for nothing.
	And the Supreme Court said, yeah, you don't have a right to private property.
	So you don't the taking clause of the fifth amendment is useless another case where the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench and absolutely undefensible and these things need to be addressed by Congress if they ever get an honest Congress that wants to sort out all the crap that's been going on in our country for the last two hundred years.
	Go ahead, GR.
	Okay, so I think what you want me to do is comment on the Israel Lindsey Graham.
	You're not, I was giving you a doubt.
	So technically, any other issues if you preferred not, but I would welcome it.
	Okay.
	There's a constitutional side to everything and Lindsey Graham's is absolutely wrong and everyone because the constitution only allows the federal government to have engagements for two things with or actually maybe three, technically three.
	War is one of them with foreign entities.
	We can conduct war with them by sending the navy and waging war.
	We can't send the army, but we can also engage in trade or not trade, and we can actually take on debt.
	If we have legitimate debt, then they can actually do that.
	If they do it, if they have debt that isn't legitimate, then they're fraud, they're defrauding the American people, and that country that's doing that is equally culpable.
	Regarding domain, in an eminent domain and property rights, the constitution only allows private property to be taken from people for public use.
	And here's the rub.
	They're supposed to have just compensation, right?
	And that's exactly what it says, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
	So when we look at the seventh amendment of the constitution, it says right there in cases of common law where the controversy is greater than twenty dollars, and I think most property today is well over twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be.
	That even goes to your traffic tickets, folks.
	If you are engaged in a controversy of over twenty dollars involved in the court and it's considered a property is common law.
	Traffic that's common law.
	That means that you have a right to a trial by jury.
	And the courts, if they're putting a magistrate or a judge in front of you and say, we're not giving you a jury, they're denying you your constitutional rights because it's right there in the seventh amendment.
	Oh, by the way, the fourteenth amendment says no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privilege and immunities of the US citizen.
	In other words, all of these things that are protected by the US Constitution, the states can't even make a law to take or bridge those rights and privileges.
	So what that means is they can't for emergency purposes take away your rights.
	They can't do it.
	Why?
	Because they were literally killing black freedmen when the 14th Amendment was being written.
	And then while the 14th Amendment was out for ratification, there was a massacre in Louisiana, in New Orleans, where they killed almost two hundred black freedmen who were trying to get initiated into the political structure of Louisiana.
	So anyway, that's kind of the two or three things.
	Did that answer your question or no?
	Joe.
	Yeah, and this is absolutely a fascinating conversation.
	Thank you so much.
	And I wish I'd have known 15 minutes before showtime that we're going to be doing constitutional stuff because I know you're good at a little more homework, but you're absolutely wonderful.
	guest and I'm really happy that you brought this information to the table because this is a really great discussion.
	I look forward to doing something like this again in the near future.
	So let me go back to what I was going to say if I could please, doctor.
	So before the break, when I thought I had a couple of seconds, constitutions are powers of attorney.
	The world has all the governments have constitutions and all government's constitutions are general powers of attorney.
	Do we understand what a general power of attorney is?
	Because I think most people do.
	That means you've given them full privilege.
	We are.
	Go ahead.
	So a general power of attorney is when you sign away everything.
	They have full discretion to do whatever you want them to do.
	They want to do.
	In other words, they have full control over you.
	You are authorizing them to act in your name, you transfer your authority to them.
	That's right.
	So when we institute a government, we actually by giving them power, we're basically saying you're going to declare war.
	But in our constitution, we're the only nation that has a limited and defined or specified constitution or power of attorney, which means when you put it in that perspective, nine times out of ten, that's when the lights go in everyone's head.
	Oh, they don't have general powers.
	They can't make it up as they go along.
	They actually have to amend the power of attorney or technically, we have to change the constitution, the states.es, three quarters of the states have to change this thing before they can do things legitimately.
	So instead of doing it legitimately, they've just decided, we're going to just throw money around and you're going to let us do it.
	And ever since then, this all started, as I said, in 1792 with the Assumption Act.
	That's when they started realizing that if they printed the money or they minted the money back in those days, they were minting and so forth and trying to basically get rid of the paper species and go towards a gold and silver coin.
	Anyway.
	Anyway.
	So the floor is yours, my friend.
	We're in the second hour.
	I wanted that to be yours in any case, so we can go wherever you want to go.
	Excellent.
	Excellent.
	If you want to have screen share to show an image, I can make you the host.
	Oh, okay.
	So yeah, go ahead.
	And I will actually pull up my website, Reclaiming the Republic.
	And the only reason I'm going to do this is to basically go into the petitions.
	So one of the things that people do not understand that, again, this is where the Supreme Court actually decided to make an aw, make this law that your right is to protest.
	They did this deliberately over, you know, all, more and more people getting just frustrated, taking it to the streets because they didn't understand this right of petition.
	What is this petition?
	And as a matter of fact, when we look at the courts, that's a petition to the court.
	And so everyone for the past century has been indoctrinated that if you've got a problem and you need government to redress it and you want official redress, you've got to go to the court.
	The Constitution, the First Amendment, literally states that the right of assembly or the right of the people to assemble and petition their government for the redress of grievances means that we have a right to petition our representatives because that's our government.
	We're Republican in form.
	We're not judiciary in only takes on cases that are actually controversies within the Constitution.
	But what do you do about a controversy that's not there, like abortion?
	You don't go to the court.
	Every time you walk in the doors of a court that doesn't have the authority and they assume the authority, you've just surrendered your sovereignty to an entity that doesn't have the ability to judge, but you're allowing them to do that.
	It's the biggest mistake we ever make.
	I keep on telling states, stop going to court.
	The greatest court, the Supreme Court of every state is that legislature.
	As a matter of fact, prior to the constitutional convention, the states were actually organizing to send their delegates.
	And in the title of their communications of enabling these delegates to go and actually work with the rest of the states in creating a constitution to fix the exigencies of the Union, they literally called themselves the great supreme court of the state in a republican form of government.
	And actually in the concept of common law, those in the jury are the it's sacred.
	The jury is sacred, which is one of the reasons why common law was considered a sacred law.
	And when we look at the trial of the president of the impeachment, it is not a court or a magistrate where a person makes a final decision.
	It is a trial by jury, the jury being the Senate.
	The senators are the ones that actually have to decide whether the law was violated or not.
	It is literally like common law.
	And this concept of the people actually having the voice is where we get into jury nullification and so forth.
	So first amendment petitions are literally a constitutional right to go to your representatives, call them out on their oath of office and say, look, you took an oath to support this constitution.
	These are clear violations and you need to do something about this.
	And this is what you have to do.
	So we're working with people.
	And let me give you a case in point in South Dakota.
	I think I mentioned this in South Dakota in 2023, the digital currency started going out to all these different states.
	This concept of allowing and legalizing a digital currency to be used as legal tender for the payment of debt where they were going to pass these laws.
	Anyone that's familiar with the constitution just a little bit in Article one, section ten states are forbidden to make any law other than gold or silver, making anything other than gold or silver the legal payment for the tender of debt.
	So when they create a law that allows something else other than gold and silver, they're directly violating their oath of office to support the Constitution.
	So in South Dakota, the State House just passed and I got notified from the Citizens for Liberty.
	Hey, they just passed this bill that's going to allow digital currency.
	And so what do we do?
	And I said, let's do a petition.
	I wrote up a petition.
	I worked with them.
	We got a petition done.
	And by the time we got the petition done, it cleared through the, these bills passed with over eighty percent in both houses, over eighty percent.
	And so they went to Governor Noam's desk and instead of her vetoing them on the constitutionality, she vetoed them because she wanted to see cryptocurrency included.
	And so, as it came back to the state house, and because that's where it originated to actually overthrow her veto, it was, everybody looked at it as a slam dunk because over eighty percent of the people signed off on it.
	We got this petition.
	We got about two hundred signatures and in there we named everybody's name who voted for that particular bill originally and said these people.
	need to be removed from office in accordance with the US Constitution and the State Constitution because they directly violated the right to vote and this is how.
	And so this got around and they got into their hands and they saw this and they go, oh my gosh, did you know that this is unconstitutional?
	No.
	And so when they actually went to vote, they couldn't even come close to fifty percent.
	They couldn't overturn that.
	Excellent.
	So petitions reach people, especially when the people understand the teeth that they have.
	We have the ability to actually I've been trying to get candidates and politicians to actually run a campaign to say hold me accountable, vote for me.
	And if I violate my oath, I want you to remove me.
	Now you see, you know, Ron Paul and some of these other guys, oh, these are great guys because they're really constitutional.
	They violate their oath.
	They don't want to be held accountable.
	And so bottom line, we have to start changing.
	We actually, because when we look at who our representatives are, they're the warriors that are supposed to be defending that constitution, as I told you, in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798.
	This is where you will actually learn that the states are the parties.
	to the compact because for some reason we're not being taught that.
	And as you go through the ratification debates, they literally clarify all this.
	So let me actually pull up my website now, if we're showing this at this point.
	These are my petitions.
	And so these are my petitions right here.
	As we go through these things, I have a total of, let me see, I think twenty, something like that.
	This petition right here identifies the federal.
	We don't, we don't, we don't see it, GR.
	We don't see it.
	Oh, so I have to go and share my screen.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	Let me do that.
	I thought we were sharing screensens already, but there we go, share a screen.
	Okay, now we're off and now we should be able to see petition two.
	So petition two is a petition that basically states that the federal government has no authority to go into a treaty that is not enumerated within Article one, Section eight.
	Therefore, they didn't have the authority to join to the UN, the World Health Organization or even the World IMF or all of these banks and so forth.
	We have no constitutional ability to join to any nation.
	Going back to Israel, we can't give money to Israel.
	We can only allow trade with Israel.
	We can't give them money.
	We can give them money if they buy our debt, if it's legitimate debt, but we shouldn't be giving them money.
	If it's illegitimate debt, we shouldn't be taking on that debt.
	That's a big, that's another problem, but and we can go to war with them, but that's it.
	That's our only engagements with foreign entities.
	So when it comes to creating a treaty, if it's not within the constitution, they can't do it.
	And oh, guess what?
	The treaties that were made with Indians to create land within states is not within the constitution.
	Thomas Jefferson in 1803 requested the power to create those types of treaties to give the government that power.
	So technically, all of this reservation land and subjugating them to the United States is all unconstitutional.
	But that's when we start really examining these things, all of a sudden we realize what a wide web of deception we've been pulled into.
	This third petition is regarding the invasion.
	We don't have an immigration crisis.
	We have an invasion.
	The Constitution calls any person that comes across our border that does not have the authority to immigrate here is an invader.
	And therefore they must be repelled.
	And so petition three lays out the constitutional argument that Congress, per the Constitution of Article one, Section four, Article one, Section ten, and Article four, Section four, they are obligated to repel all invaders, period.
	No DACAs.
	You're here illegally, unconstitutionally.
	And if you're born here by invaders, you don't become a citizen.
	The Supreme Court had no ruling or they don't have the power to redefine the Constitution.
	And that very first line in the 14th Amendment literally states under the jurisdiction thereof.
	They're not under the jurisdiction.
	Invaders are still under the jurisdiction from whence they came.
	They will never become under the jurisdiction until they become citizens.
	So this is how the courts have completely whitewashed and have completely subverted our constitution.
	Petition four is actually basically going after corporations that want to deny our civil rights because in Missouri there was a potential of Walmart not allowing petitions to gather signatures and so forth to be done.
	So we created that just in case because no state can remember the 14th Amendment does not allow a state to make or enforce any law that infringes.
	So they can't enforce Walmart's policy or anyone's policy that you can't actually.
	assemble and get signatures for petitioning your government.
	PR, you're covering a lot of territory.
	Joe's gonna have a lot of thoughts.
	I want to get you to think again.
	So I'm sorry.
	If you go through all of these, let me just say, go slow down.
	You've got plenty of time.
	No, no, what I'd rather do is if you want a cherry pick, because there's a lot here.
	We have the digital currency here.
	We have the healthcare, Obamacare.
	We have even the eminent domain.
	Eminent domain petition 21.
	Just let me bring in my co-host.
	Okay, also we love what you're winning i'm sorry oh your thoughts yeah well i think the whole system is getting ready to collapse really quick uh ricks is being forced together because of trump's uh bullet pulpy tariffs which are actually illegal uh he can't impose tariffs without having congressional approval that's in article But also, we had the failure of the Bretton Woods 1944 monetary exchange.
	We've built a whole house of cards with fiat currency worldwide.
	And we're at the point now where this house of cards is 100% going to collapse.
	But I want to mention two other things.
	You'd mentioned something about political protests.
	And guess what?
	There's the U.S. Institute of Peace, and they had a director who was hiring people to be a program for non-violent action.
	And she's going through all these different things that once these people get selected to be government employees, that they're allowed to go out and burn tires in the middle of the roadway and block traffic and do all kinds of non-violent things.
	And they specifically state in their handbook that property damage is not violent.
	So if they go and burn out a police station or burn a couple of police cars, that's no big deal.
	And then we also have Elizabeth Warren, who set up a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she's in charge of, which has the ability to debank people who are politically exposed persons.
	And who do they debank?
	Oh, Fuentes and James O'Keefe.
	They take away their credit cards, all their banking accounts.
	absolutely turn you into a non-person.
	So where is the constitutional So you're right about Congress regarding tariffs regarding, you know, the regulation of trade.
	The president has the ability to go and create the treaties and Congress has the ability because it's right there in the Commerce Clause that they're to regulate trade with foreign nations trade.
	Now, so the question is, does that include tariffs or actually blocking, does the president have the ability to say for national security purposes, we will not do trade with these nations?
	That's a question, Joe.
	Does the president have the ability to say these people, this nation is a strategic threat?
	I don't see how he has the ability to do that unilaterally.
	So when you look at the regulation of trade with foreign nations.
	Once again, we're at a break point.
	That's okay.
	Loving this whole discussion.
	Okay, we'll return.
	But GR Mobley and Joe Olson right after this break.
	Thank you.
	Revolution Radio at freedomslots.com.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	We'll see you next time.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio, one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you.
	Yes, you that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern time on Studio B for Momentary Zen.
	host, Zen Garcia at freedomsteps.com The People Station You can deal with the Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The US Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	911 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the Neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Newt on 911, available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com 100 listeners supported radio and now we return you to our host jr go right ahead go right ahead lay down okay so in talking about trade that the united states has to establish
	basic consoles they basically have to have an embassy for them to start doing trade that is all set up by the president the president can actually shut down and end all relations with a nation.
	He has that authority.
	But when they do have and the treaties or agreements of trade are done with the Senate, with the consent and advice of the Senate.
	So it starts with the Senate and then the House of Representatives or Congress that can then start regulating the trade that we're doing with them, whether we're going to impose taxes or what have you.
	But going into the, you know, this ability to create tariffs and those types of things if we already have trade.
	The president doesn't have the ability to do that.
	If he wants to cut off a nation, all he's got to do is end, shut down the consularies.
	He doesn't even really have to do that, but he can really shut down a nation or our engagement with them in commerce.
	So that's in Article 2.
	They went through this in the Constitutional Convention as well as the ratification debates that when it comes to foreign affairs and foreign dealings, the president basically sets the tone.
	And unfortunately, President Washington really took a very passive approach instead of actually trying to take more of a strategic approach because he took a passive approach.
	due to the fact, and he spent no real effort in building up a navy.
	He should have actually taken a strategic approach and started building the navy.
	That really took Adams, but nevertheless, as I look at the eminent domain as well, if you go into this one petition, you'll realize that the federal government or the state government cannot take private property for a private corporation or for other private interests.
	And again, it goes back to a trial by jury to determine what that just compensation is.
	They just don't give you what they think is right.
	The homeowner has the ability to say, this is what I believe is just, and the jury will decide what is just or what isn't just.
	So anyway, but going through these petitions, I would just ask, if you actually go through these things, it'll kind of help you see these are all very, very big issues, whether that be the currency, whether that be the Department of Interior.
	As a matter of fact, When we were moving along, the Constitution was really being, I would say the closest time that we had in following the Constitution wastion was between 1801 when Jefferson got into office and 1816 when Madison was actually being voted out because he decided to only do two terms.
	And 1816 is when Congress admitted they sent an enabling act to Indiana and Congress overstepped their bounds or the limitations in the Constitution by making reservations regarding the salt mines and actually telling the state that they had to do certain things with their property.
	It's self-determination.
	The federal government is only involved in preparing that territory to become a state in the Union.
	Therefore, when they actually are being admitted, when they finally meet the threshold of becoming a state, then that state basically decides what their constitution is going to say, and they're going to establish a Republican form of government, however they choose to do that.
	And the federal government has no say over any property.
	As a matter of fact, when that state becomes a state and the federal government basically wants to become or wants the cavalry or the forts and arsenals to be maintained, the federal government has to come back and actually buy those properties.
	That's right there in Article 1, Section 8.
	They actually have to buy that with the consent of the state legislature.
	Technically, when these states came into the Union, they were supposed to have the militia to sustain them, to protect them from whatever threats they were to have.
	That was the constitutional standard.
	Every state was to defend itself and the federal government would add more militia when necessary.
	What they did, and this is how Washington and DC started actually bolstering the Department of Defense by saying, well, we're just going to have the, make this kind of permanent.
	And they had no constitutional authority to do that.
	They may have had the authority to regulate and maintain the territory, but every time a state came into the union, that the involvement of the DOD ended.
	They're supposed to take on their responsibility, the strategic defense, and have a militia and actually defend themselves unless the governor asks, because that's the process in the Constitution.
	If they need help, they ask.
	So because we became so constitutionally illiterate at a very early age, they were able to start stretching things.
	When the states actually decided, or I should say Congress, the representatives of both the people and the states basically said, we're going to now inflict slavery on states of a certain latitude.
	They had no constitutional authority to do that over and over and over.
	This is really when everything started going sideways.
	And actually, I've documented the fact that the Ponzi scheme of taking land and basically allowing the federal government to sell state land while it's a state started in 1819 with that Indiana Enabling Act or 1816 with that Indiana Enabling Act.
	That's when they literally started playing around with it and they used the North.west Ordinance to actually get into the state to say, we have these authorities, but the Northwest Ordinance was superseded by the Constitution.
	So when we go through these petitions, you'll actually start seeing how important these things really are.
	Because one, the petition educates the people, it educates their representatives, it literally and definitively lays out what's in the Constitution and how that Constitution was defined in the ratification debates.
	And so as we go forward, we're not to go into the courts.
	As a matter of fact, the courts really need to be, I don't want to say shut down, but they need to be used for what they need to be.
	used for what they're there for in the constitution, not what they've said they're there for.
	So by doing that, this is where the state legislatures can literally start auditing the constitution against the federal government, and over ninety percent of what the federal government is doing is unconstitutional, the spending is just outrageous.
	Go ahead.
	TR, how many states are you plugged into?
	I mean, is this thing in, was it South Dakota or was it North?
	So South Dakota is where we actually did the petition seven.
	So yeah, I'm very impressed by that.
	Have you had similar success in other states with petitions?
	So actually, we actually have two states that have been moving for legislation where in the state of Wyoming it has become the priority of the Wyoming Republican Party to have the state initiate the audit by actually creating a constitutional review committee where they're actually going to start going through the constitution.
	The first thing they have to do, first off, is determine what is the legitimate constitution.
	Because when you talk constitution, there are literally two.
	There's the actual constitution that was ratified in the language and the ratification debates that define it, that's the legitimate constitution.
	What the federal government did, because they were making it up so fast that they had to keep track of how they were redefining things.
	So they created this beast called the annotated constitution.
	And this is where the court has redefined how they interpret that part of the constitution and how they're going to enforce it.
	GR, GR, just to make a practical point.
	We've had hundreds of years with this annotated constitution.
	Even if you write in principle that many of these actions are unconstitutional strictly understood, would that be a basis for overthrowing this history of actions and decisions that have been made.
	I mean, I'm wondering how it could be done as a practical matter, even if in principle you are correct.
	As Madison stated, it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter how long they've been violating the constitution.
	There's no clause in the constitution that says, if we can get away with it for this long, it becomes legitimate.
	Yeah, but isn't it going to be the case that's going to require the court, the Supreme Court itself to rule that these prior previous or how does it go about the reforms you're proposing would be put in place and enforced.
	Yeah, actually, you know what?
	I'm going to do this again because I actually do a training segment with a lot of different people in states and so forth.
	And so it's called the five critical documents and I actually go ahead.
	I am trying to actually expand this thing.
	Oh, Joe, you comment.
	Well, well, JR is tracking.
	Thanks, man.
	Go ahead, Joe.
	Gee, I thought we were going to do current events sometime today, but we didn't get to that.
	Okay.
	Get to what?
	Current events.
	That's what Jim and I normally talk about.
	So I did get the words, but go ahead, go ahead.
	Talk about what JR GR has been telling us.
	Okay.
	So on my website, I have this little button called Academic Source Documents.
	And if you go here, this is literally the proverbial horse's mouth.
	In other words, this is what was said and this is how it's defined.
	And down here, we have the ratification dates.
	You're more than welcome.
	This is our copy.
	Oh, this is great.
	These are highlighted.
	Terrific.
	What a resource.
	Right.
	And so down below this are the five critical documents.s that everybody needs to understand.
	I mean, you've got to read these things.
	So this is where Madison dives into the Kentucky resolutions and the constitution.
	And this is where he literally says the court cannot be the final arbiter of the constitution when it is not within their jurisdiction.
	If they can assume that, then they basically wiped out the relationship.
	And the only way to fix that is for the states to actually step in, intervene and interpose.
	So I actually go through the documents.
	There's the five documents are here.
	The Kentucky resolutions, the Virginia resolutions, the Kentucky resolutions of 1999.
	By the way, the Kentucky resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson.
	Madison wrote the resolutions of Virginia.
	He wrote the report to Virginia, and he also wrote this thing about the notes on nullification.
	What they ended up doing was actually misinterpreted by the South, and they started actually trying to apply this concept of nullification.
	A state cannot nullify the constitutional laws or laws of the federal laws without stepping out of the Union.
	In other words, if they say, I'm not, we're not going to be part of this marriagege.
	We're not going to abide by this anymore.
	They actually have to step out.
	They have to secede.
	And Madison is very clear why that has to happen.
	The last thing we want is nullification, because what is nullification?
	Let's look at it this way.
	The parent is the state, and the child is the federal government.
	If the states nullify, that means they're just ignoring what the child is doing.
	They're not forcing the child to behave properly.
	We have to get behavior correct.
	And so as we look at the relationship in our hybrid constitutional republic.
	The first government that we, the people, create is our county.
	The problem is that the government did that for us and we never assumed control over our county.
	This is where we have the power, we have the right, and it's a part of our declaration that governments are instituted by we, the people, which means that we can actually create a constitution for our county and then we can fix our states by actually So this is what we're doing in Washington State.
	We're actually starting in Washington State, and there's a few other states that are getting close, where we're creating these constitutional review committees under the auspices of common law and the constitution, and these counties are actually going to migrate themselves into a constitutional county.
	And to do that, there are certain criteria that must be met.
	It's not you pay someone fifty bucks or whatever and we will call you constitutional county.
	You actually have to have a militia.
	Your sheriff actually has to have an engagement and a relationship with the militia and the state legislator, or I should say the county legislators need to actually form and get the state of the county to form their constitution.
	There's a lot of little different things that have to be done to become constitutional.
	So the effort is actually, and this is, this is a big step in helping people understand how to take back GR.
	GR is GR.
	What happens to the consequences of all the decisions that have been made that have been unconstitutional?
	This includes vast decisions affecting education, property allocation, finances, taxing, disposition of troops.
	How in the world would you undo that to reset it?
	I mean, talk about a great reset.
	Seemed to me going constitutional in Europe would involve a great reset right here in the USA.
	How could that be done?
	Okay, so let's start with the Department of Transportation.
	So the Department of Transportation is unconstitutional.
	And, you know, Madison was the one that actually vetoed the Congress's first attempt to do this.
	But let's just look at this one little thing.
	If the federal government no longer has the Department of Transportation and they're no longer able to use these infrastructure boondoggles so they can rob trillions of dollars from the taxpayers.
	This has been the vehicle of their, you know, their slush funds, the Department of Transportation.
	But anyway, if we get rid of that, does that mean that the states are not going to have a responsibility of using the roads?
	No, the responsibilities all shift to the states where it belongs, which means that at this point in time, this is where the states will say, you know, we need to kind of create this cooperation so that we strategically control what's best for us instead of letting the federal government, because if they don't, you need to listen.
	GR, GR, GR, I want you to tell me more.
	Now, what would happen if we went constitutional?
	What would have to be done?
	You're talking about getting rid of a bunch of departments that are unconstitutional of the government.
	You're reallocating responsibilities.
	You're abolishing a whole lot of things.
	Yes.
	How in the world could that be done?
	Well, it's done legally, right?
	Because if they don't have the authority to do it, us allowing them to continue doing this, the blood is on our hands.
	Yeah.
	How I'm talking practicality.
	Okay.
	So if you look at the concept of public review that's on the on my main page, we have a model for this.
	The states literally have to go through and they're going to have to audit.
	They're going to have to determine all these things go.
	It doesn't mean that it goes tomorrow.
	It doesn't mean that we shut the light on.
	But what has to happen first is we have to actually get 29 states based on my last looking at consensus, 29 states have to demand full compliance.
	If we have 29 states that demand full compliance, that means that any congressperson, whether they're a senator or a representative in Congress, if they fail to support the Constitution, these 29 states are fully on board with removing them and replacing them with people that will actually do the job.
	And in so doing with the 29 states, we actually have full constitutional control.
	control over Congress.
	Does that make sense?
	You'll have more than enough people in the Senate and we'll have more than enough because you only need a majority to wipe out anything that's unconstitutional.
	You don't have to have a certain threshold to pass a bill in the House.
	If it's unconstitutional, the House can actually do this and by demand of the state, the states will actually send directives to say, we created this Department of Transportation without the authority of the states.
	And the states do not want to have, they do not want us to have this authority.
	Therefore, we are demolishing this and never again will we ever create a new power role responsibility property what have you without an amendment to the constitution first?
	GR, let me let me.
	Yeah.
	Let me say I think everything you're talking about is admirable.
	We're talking about a massive reconstruction of the federal government, state government, local government.
	It would be overwhelming.
	Yes.
	Do you think it actually could be done?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	It's far better to do this.
	So this may be, people may think that this may be a bitter elixir, but it's far better to do this than lose.
	everything because that's where we are let's let's get Joe in here Joe your inflections your thoughts well this is the first the first time I've ever excuse me first time I've ever heard of the annotated constitution so I've got a lot of homework to do but I have to It's an interesting conversation.
	And at this point, there's a whole lot of hypotheticals that like you're bringing up that I don't really see the route past all these obstacles because the Goliath is so big at this point.
	So, but that's okay.
	The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
	Yeah.
	So when we look at the federal government, I know we're talking about unemploying millions of people, but in the, in the grand scheme of things, there are millions and millions and millions of people in the states.
	And even though California and New York may have a large percentage of the people, it's, it, the fact is, Wyoming has the same weight in the Union as California.
	The only place that they have a little extra weight is in the House of Representatives.
	And that was, that's all, you know, another problem.
	But that's why I said, all we need are thirty nine states.
	We don't need 34 or 33, we need 29 states.
	The Convention of States needs 34.
	We only need 29 to demand full compliance to the Constitution.
	And the states can start deciding what goes first.
	And the states literally need to decide strategically what goes first.
	The Department of Education is probably the first thing that needs to go.
	And as a matter of fact, we live in a time and day when, you know, the problem with education is the labor.
	We don't need to spend that much money on labor.
	We live in an age and time where there's no reason why you can't have the best teacher in the union teaching every class.
	In other words, we can scale it down to maybe a handful, hundreds of people instead of thousands, probably millions of teachers.
	When we look at how many teachers, when we look at these leviathans that have been created, there's going to be a lot of people that are supposedly public workers that are actually going to have to become public contributors instead of takers.
	Because that's the problem.
	We've shifted into socialism and that's it's all unconstitutional.
	There's you can't get me to surrender not demanding.
	compliance.
	We have to demand compliance to that compact.
	And for me, every time, go ahead, go ahead.
	You mentioned this word, socialism.
	It seemed to me.
	We have a mixed capitalist, socialist system.
	There are programs the government has that would be described as socialist that I think are absolutely fundamental.
	Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation.
	Would they be unconstitutional if we were to go your route?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But social security is, and so Milton Friedman basically identified that, and I agree with him that the one thing that we maintain that promise to the people that we don't maintain social security, we maintain what they are owed and we end this problem and we fix it for all the younger generation to say, you're on your own for retirement.
	If you've invested in this up to a certain point, you're going to get paid back and you will be paid back with reasonable interest for what you've invested in this.
	But if you really look at not spending the money on the war machine, the education and health care, I mean, Ike actually was the one that created the HU, right?
	The Department of Health, Education, Welfare.
	So he actually was the guy that gave us the medical industrial outfit or in complex.
	And I'm going, that costs us more than war now.
	Let me just take that example.
	Why was creating HEW unconstitutional?
	So for them to be involved in anything that is not within the constitution, they have to have the right to vote.
	to have the states grant that authority to them.
	It's like if you give somebody a limited power of attorney to sell your, you know, a vehicle, that's all they can do.
	Okay.
	Joe, your further thoughts, Joe, we're concluding our conversation, your reflections in general.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I thought this was when we originally broached this subject, I thought we were going to talk about the constitutional conventions, which where you go get folks and go in and rewrite the constitution in the first block.
	And at first blush, that seemed okay, but after listening to the John Birch Society's arguments against that and all of the things that could go haywire with that, that seemed a very impractical way.
	What GR has given us is a different perspective with a different way of solving that same problem, and it looks like it could be pretty comprehensive.
	But there again, this is my first exposure to this material.
	It's fascinating.
	I intend to do some more discovery on it.
	Look forward to having a future conversation because it's very interesting.
	Thank you, GR.
	It's been a wonderful chat.
	Yeah.
	GR, what do you call this?
	It's going constitutional.
	How do you call it?
	What do you call your movement?
	Well, so reclaiming the republic.
	So because we have a constitutional republic, right?
	Reclaiming the republic.
	Republic.
	And that's the website, reclaimingtherepublic dot org dot You got a minute and a half or two, give us a wrap.
	Just tie it up and talk about where to go.
	Almost everything a person needs is on reclaimingtherepublic dot org dot We get obviated by big organizations like the John Birchers.
	They don't want you to think it's either nullify or, you know, rewrite.
	We have the power to take control.
	The constitution is not the problem.
	The federal government is the problem.
	So the bottom line is, if you want to start getting active, we have to start.
	I recommend we start one in your county as well as your state house.
	Give me a call.
	My contact information is there.
	I will get back to you.
	Email me, whatever.
	We will get back to you and we will start helping you organize a movement.
	both in your county and your state.
	When you look at the petitions at the very end, there are eight expectations we ask your county legislators to do all within their will well, all within their budget and time.
	There's no reason why they can't do this, and this kickstarts everything.
	Jerry Mobley, it's been fascinating having you here.
	You're a brilliant guy.
	Joe and I both enjoy this immensely.
	Everyone out there, spend as much time with your family, your friends, people you love and care about.
	We do not know how much time we have left.
	Use it.
	And as you know, although I'm an agnostic, I'm now disposed to say, God willing, or your God willing, we'll be back on Wednesday and continue our conversation.
	Thanks for being here.
	support Revolution Radio.
	See you all.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Who is listening?

▲