Welcome back, everyone, to False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2025.
Our next speaker is Donald Jeffries.
He is a radio broadcaster for a long time called the Donald Jeffries Show.
It is on Wednesday evening from 6 to 8 Eastern on the O'Chelli.com channel.
And I believe it's also on a bunch of other networks and stations.
I'm sure you can find it if you're very interested, and I'm sure you are to listen to what Don and his guests have to say during their highly recommended radio show.
And he has written several books.
He is, oh my gosh.
And you have a forward by Ron Paul in one of your books, which I find fascinating.
And yeah, his resume is extremely long and very chock full of amazing information.
I would like to say that I know he's a JFK researcher and probably one of the best scholars on the JFK assassination out there as far as radio broadcasting goes.
And I see a Kennedy book right behind you there, Don.
Oh, there's probably a bunch of them there.
Yeah, there are.
Fantastic.
So without any further delay, he is going to be doing a presentation called Subverting Our Founding Fathers, which has changed to what is the new title, Don?
Betrayal of the Founding Fathers.
Betrayal of the Founding Fathers.
So there you go, folks.
It's all the same venue, those poor founding fathers.
Here's Don Jeffries.
Oh, thanks so much, Lauren.
One correction.
That's dated.
I haven't been with the O'Chelli Network for a couple of years.
I do protest my podcast, and it's on my YouTube channel and a bunch of other places.
What is your YouTube channel?
How did they get to the YouTube channel?
I'll have to give you the link because if it's, you know, it's Don Jeffries and it's got some numbers in it or whatever.
You should be able to find it there.
But it's put in your name, they can find it, correct?
Yeah, and it also live streams on Twitter if you want to follow me in Exits at Don Jeffries.
It live streams there and sometimes on Rumble.
So that's Fridays, 5 to 7 p.m. Eastern.
Wonderful.
Thank you, dear.
Okay, here we go.
Okay, thanks.
Well, thanks for having me.
As Lauren said, I've been around a while.
I started out as a teenager as a volunteer with Mark Lane Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s.
So very heady stuff.
And I got to go to the archives and hold the rifle and the magic bullet and all that stuff when I was a teenager.
And it was pretty cool.
So I've never looked back since then.
That was my wheelhouse issue.
And it led to many other things.
And the presentation today, I think, you know, the past is prologue.
And we'll look at the founding fathers.
And I think they set out a pretty good system.
And unfortunately, it was subverted.
They say so.
Let me make sure I share this screen, right?
Okay, is that make sure that's sharing.
Okay.
Can you see that now?
Can you see the PowerPoint?
Should be able to, right?
Yes, Don.
We can, but we really need to get it into slideshow mode.
Oh, how do I do that?
Oh, it's not open.
Okay.
What I need you to do is I need you to click on Betraying the Founding Fathers there, that PowerPoint presentation and open it up in PowerPoint.
Okay, open.
Okay.
And oh, you need to stop sharing too, by the way.
Oh, I have to stop sharing.
Okay.
Yeah, stop sharing and then open your PowerPoint presentation.
Okay, how do I stop sharing?
Down at the very bottom, there should be a green button and you should be able to stop sharing or at the top.
It just says share, but like it's not sharing.
How do I stop sharing?
Yeah, it is sharing.
Okay.
At the very top, there might be a green area that says stop sharing there.
It says you are screen sharing.
How do I stop?
You're using recording.
It just says share.
I don't see anything about, excuse me, stop sharing.
It says you are screen sharing.
I can do it for you.
I'm going to do it right now.
Okay, that'd probably be best sex.
There we go.
Okay.
So I was able to stop sharing, but I can't share for you.
So anyhow, go ahead and open your PowerPoint presentation.
Okay.
So, okay.
There's okay.
It's, they think that's there.
Okay.
Click on it.
Okay.
No, no, don't.
Well, yeah, you can click on it, but I need you to go back to the Zoom window and just go slowly from here.
Okay.
And hit the screen, share screen button again.
Okay.
And then you'll see a bunch of windows pop up.
Now, before you click on anything, I want to know, do you have video in your PowerPoint?
No, no.
Wonderful.
No, no.
Okay.
So then click on the window that shows just the PowerPoint presentation.
Okay.
Okay.
And click share.
How's that?
We'll know in a second.
There we go.
Perfect.
Now I need you to click away over on the right side, the yellow bar and click on the X and click on the red one as well.
Get rid of both of those.
Okay.
Then go up to where it says slideshow in the tabs where it says file home insert dispositions.
Yes.
Hit slideshow and from beginning.
Okay.
Sounds good.
Okay.
Sounds good.
There we go.
It looks beautiful.
We're ready to rock and roll.
So take it.
Okay.
So click.
Okay.
Thanks so much for your help.
And I'm sorry.
Those of you who listen to my podcast know that I have these technical glitches quite often.
Some people seem to like it.
But anyhow, again, we're talking about the Founding Fathers.
It's an area of interest of mine.
I've been interested in the revolutionary era since I was very young.
So this is a natural thing for me.
Okay, so let's see a little bit of history.
And, you know, this is kind of most of you know it, I'm sure, although most of us are not that well versed in history.
But in 1764 to 1765, the British decided to use taxes on sugar and stamps in the colonies to fund their debt from the French Indian War.
1773, the Boston Tea Party resulted from England allowing the East India Company to sell Chinese tea in the colonies without taxation.
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax to help fund the Civil War.
1913, the 16th Amendment created the graduate income tax.
So we went basically from taxes on sugar and stamps, which we revolted, revolting over to what we have today.
There's a picture of the Boston Tea Party.
The average American now works for nearly four months out of every year simply to pay all the taxes.
Personal property taxes, which some Republicans tried to eliminate in the late 1990s and early 2000s, appear here to stay.
They permit taxation on property, which has already been purchased in perpetuity.
So it seems very unfair.
But of course, and what I talk about our system, I don't have it in the power play, but I say that we have socialism without services because we pay all these taxes for almost half a year in taxes and we get little or nothing in return.
If you look at it, we don't have a big social safety net like France or England or some or those socialist countries have.
We get basically nothing.
The Declaration of Independence.
So, you know, I want to read all of this.
And to me, if you look at it, it's a revolutionary document literally today.
And there's a reason why it's not stressed very often.
One point I like to bring up is that Hollywood has never done a film on George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, never in their history.
And this is odd.
If you look back at the beginning of Hollywood, they made films about British royalty, things like that, certainly about Lincoln.
But for some reason, the father of the country never had a biopic.
Thomas Jefferson never did.
Very little attention was ever paid, even at the beginning of Hollywood, to that period of our founding.
And I think there's good reason for that because they don't want the people to be concentrating too much on overthrowing rule and deciding they want things different themselves.
So again, most of you know these words.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.
And accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, events as a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right.
It is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for the future security.
Now, we skip ahead past all the specific allegations against George III, who is referred to as the present king of Great Britain.
And if you read it, you'll see that they don't seem like much of a big deal to us today, especially when you look at the long series of abuses and usurpations that we've experienced in our lifetimes at the hands of our own government.
They close with, we therefore, the representatives of the United States of America and General Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do in the name and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved.
And that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
And for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
And I think, think of that.
I mean, that's just, you know, if you really read, and as a kid, you know, I learned those words, and they stirred me as a kid.
But if you look at them, just understand how that, now that's our founding document.
And the founders are saying that, you know, we have a right to alter or abolish this, that we can pick this up.
And there are many other quotes from Jefferson, especially, that talk about whenever people grow tired of this, if this doesn't work out, something better that you think would bring, then you have the right to do that.
And we'll go forward to what happened when some people tried that less than 100 years later.
The government never intended, once the powers that be got at the head of our country, they never intended to let that happen.
They certainly don't now.
But these were very different men than the one percenters of our times.
This picture, because all these people were the richest men in the colonies.
John Hancock was incredibly rich.
George Washington, Jefferson, all these people were very wealthy.
So these were the one percenters of their day.
And that may be the only kind of revolution that can happen, you know, organically is if when the richest people decide to do it.
But they did pledge their lives and fortunes.
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence understood the gravity of what they were doing.
They pledged to risk our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor by doing so.
In my book, Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics, 1776, 1963, and that's the one that Lorian refused to that has a forward by Ron Paul, to my delight and honor.
I detailed what happened to these one percenters of their day.
Many fought directly in battle.
Some died.
Many lost their fortunes, but they maintained their sacred honor.
It may be apocryphal, but it was said that John Hancock signed his name so large so that King George III could read it without his glasses.
So what happened?
You know, this is, wait a minute, let's have a, hold on a second.
This is out of order.
Let's get back to, yeah, okay, there's my, that's my book, and these are out of order a little bit.
That's the Crimes and Cover Us American Politics.
You can find out lots more about the founding of the country and especially the Civil War.
The Articles of Confederation, though, this was the first form of government that the newly formed independent republic was governed by.
Adopted in 1777 by the Continental Congress, established a league of friendship among the 13 sovereign and independent states.
Each state had every power, which is not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States.
Each state had one vote in Congress, regardless of population.
James Madison and George Washington were among those concerned about the power of the states and the weak central government.
In 1787, the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation.
Patrick Henry was among those who smelt a rat.
Let me see if I can go back here.
Okay.
The Federalist were led by Alexander Hamilton, who's my least favorite founding father, and he's probably the only one that would fit in today.
He'd probably be a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.
We'll be attending Bilderberg meetings because he was a, you know, definitely had the globalist mentality.
That's probably why he's a hip black rap star on Broadway.
He's the only one that's respected by our culture.
Unquestionably won a battle with the Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson.
The Constitution greatly expanded the powers of the central government.
Madison's three separate and equal branches, the executive, judicial, and legislative, were supposed to provide checks and balances against too much concentration of power.
The inclusion of the Bill of Rights made the Constitution palatable to Jefferson and others.
George Mason was instrumental in writing and including the Bill of Rights.
And these are the Bill of Rights.
I'm not going to read them all, but these are very important.
We know about the First Amendment, the Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Now, that's problematic in today's world, as you know.
Lots of people don't like that First Amendment very much.
The Second Amendment, we'll talk a little bit more about that.
That's problematic because it was not worded correctly, but we'll talk about that.
We're not worded very in the kind of concise way it should have been, clear, concise way.
Fourth Amendment, very important, and that is one that's that's that's constantly broached during every traffic stop.
Okay, the Second Amendment, so let's look at the vagueness of the Second Amendment has caused unfortunate and unnecessary confusion.
The founders certainly would have worded it, could have worded it more clearly than a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The militia thing just is what confuses everyone.
I published a list containing many detailed comments from all the prominent founding fathers regarding their thoughts on gun rights in my book, Crimes and cover-ups in American Politics 1776-1963, the one that I showed the cover of before.
So you can read all the quotes there.
There's no doubt.
They made it perfectly clear that the Second Amendment was to protect individual gun ownership.
Okay.
The Fourth and the Tenth Amendments.
The Fourth Amendment is much clearer.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
However, with the advent of asset forfeiture and armed SWAT raids over the past few decades, this amendment has been rendered largely meaningless.
There are countless videos of the Fourth Amendment being violated during routine traffic stops, and you can see it over and over again.
These police gone wild videos or just traffic videos, the motorists, if they're aware of their rights, and more and more people are, they'll say something like, you know, no, I don't give you permission to search the car or things like that.
And why should you?
There's no probable cause.
But this happens all the time.
And police invariably, a lot of times it ends up getting, you know, the guys get beat up or something for standing up for their rights.
But at any rate, the Fourth Amendment is trampled upon almost as much as the First Amendment.
The 10th Amendment is very important.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.
It serves to illustrate the intent of the founders to limit the government to certain delineated powers.
This one has been forgotten too.
The Civil War eviscerated it with its destruction of states' rights.
And again, that was, look at the way that's worded.
So if they're the Constitution, even though a lot of critics, a lot of people that read my work, you know, prefer the Articles of Confederation, and maybe I do too, but it was the Constitution was made palatable by the Bill of Rights.
But the 10th Amendment is very important because it shows unless the Constitution grants a specific power to the executive, legislative, or judicial branches, then it is assumed that that will be, it's prohibited in reserve for the states respectively or to the people.
So in other words, if they didn't give it a specific power, then they don't have the right to do it.
And obviously, if you look at the things that government does now, I mean, look at the Edward Snowden is still in exile for the NSA spying on us.
I mean, that's obviously a specific right that was not granted in the Constitution.
So unfortunately, we are living under a government that doesn't respect, remotely respect the Bill of Rights.
Even at the beginning, some states tried to scale back what power was given to the Constitution.
Because, again, there was a lot of worry, people like Jefferson.
Jefferson only supported the Constitution when they put the Bill of Rights in.
But you have people like Patrick Henry that never did.
And, you know, he said he smelt a rat and he thought, hey, this is, you know, this isn't what we fought for.
But rightfully fearing that too much power is being given to unelected judges, Virginia suggested a detailed amendment on judicial power.
It would have limited the federal judiciary to just the Supreme Court and admiralty courts appointed by Congress.
So you wouldn't have this nonsense about a federal judge ruling this or federal judge ruling that, which is unelected officials that are just completely controlling our lives more than our representatives are in many cases.
Massachusetts, in a proposal written by John Hancock, wanted to prohibit Congress from collecting direct taxes.
Massachusetts also tried to guarantee one representative to every 30,000 persons is a more viable form of representation.
Today, the U.S. averages about one representative for every 750,000 persons.
So think about it.
I think it was like a classroom.
If your children are in school, you're going to feel much better if there's one teacher for every 20 students rather than one teacher for every 30 students.
Our rights infringe.
And again, our rights were, from the very beginning, and we'll talk about the judicial review in just a little bit.
But to quote from William Watkins, a libertarian scholar, The fact remains that the American public generally tolerates countless violations of the 10th Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Second Amendment.
The federal government routinely seizes private property without due process, fails to provide for speedy trials.
I mean, look at what happened to the January 6th defendants.
They were denied all due process, passes federal gun control laws, and invents powers for itself that are reserved to the states and the citizens alone.
Even the First Amendment is now being targeted by the feds who are in the throes of limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press by labeling objectionable ideas as fake news and thus not so-called protected speech.
Recall that Joe Biden tried to install an Orwellian disinformation czar.
If you remember the lady very memorably had a video where she tried to do a spoof of Mary Poppin's super caliphragicalistic expi on those basically saying the statist, you know, tyrannical little jingle.
It was very bizarre.
Fortunately, it didn't last long, but they tried to do it.
Americans have widely accepted the ludicrous notion of hate speech.
And I don't know why anybody does.
And anybody mentions hate speech to me, and I always say there's no such thing as hate speech.
What are you talking about?
Hate is a human emotion.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
So that's absolutely ridiculous.
We all hate some things.
You can't have a law based on a feeling or emotion, which contradicts any, of course, and hate speech contradicts any notion of free speech.
We should be free to hate, which is a human emotion.
Hate speech, along with misinformation and disinformation, again, are more terms that can't be quantified, or in reality, thought crimes.
That's what I refer to it as thought crime.
And we really, again, just to allow this to even be discussed, but there are no civil libertarians.
My hero was Mark Lane, and I idolized him when I was volunteering for him as a teenager.
And he was a civil libertarian.
And the ACLU, I was a card carrying member of the ACLU back in those days as a young guy.
And that was when the ACOU fought for everyone's right.
They defended people who said they were Nazis, not people who everybody else was calling Nazis.
And in Skokie, Illinois, they defended a Jewish lawyer, went there and defended their right to march.
That's what it's about.
That's what free speech is.
Defending someone else's rights, no matter how much you disagree with them or how much you may be mortified by them.
But very few Americans seem, most Americans now support free speech insofar as they agree with it.
And that's not what it's about.
Free speech doesn't mean anything if you don't support speech you disagree with.
Free speech, the most important amendment of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment.
If we don't have the right to speak, worship, or freely assemble, then the other rights don't mean much.
Our liberty depends upon the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost, Thomas Jefferson said.
When Eugene Debs and other anti-war protesters were thrown in jail during World War I, they petitioned the Supreme Court.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supported Woodrow Wilson's right to incarcerate World War I protesters by saying, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
That's where that came from.
There's probably not one in 100 million Americans.
I didn't know that when I was researching it, that that's where you can't fire in a crowded theater comes from.
So think about that.
Protesting war is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
That's what we're told.
So if anybody ever mentions that to you, say, oh, you mean the protesting World War I?
That's where it came from.
People don't know.
Americans don't know their history.
So it was an absurd analogy to be drawn, but Oliver Wendell Holmes, well-respected liberal, was a big-time pro-war guy, and eugenicist like most of those early early day, early 20th century liberals were.
Americans didn't object to this huge abridgment of free speech.
They absolutely didn't.
There were no protests against it.
Today, very few object to the Orwellian term hate speech, which is incompatible with free speech.
Doge found that some six, you know, when Doge.
Doge is one of the most encouraging things I've seen in all my lifetime of following politics in the beginning of this year.
And unfortunately, it petered out, and now they say it doesn't exist.
So I don't know.
Doge found that some 6,000 journalists around the world had been paid through USAID.
They didn't publicize that very much.
And what was an obvious extension of Operation Mockingburg?
Think of that, 6,000 journalists all over the world, the CIA's program to control journalists.
The concept of asset forfeiture, and we touched on that a little bit earlier when we talked about the Fourth Amendment, because it obviously violates the Fourth Amendment.
But this idea, actually, it goes back to, I didn't write this in my book, American Memory Hole, it talked about the real truth of what happened during World War II in this country in terms of incarcerating Americans in concentration camps.
Most people think it was just Japanese Americans.
It wasn't.
There were also Italian Americans and German Americans.
And what happened was, and we did a little research on that.
Friend Peter Sikosh helped a lot with the research.
And we found out that they literally stole the businesses and homes of all these people before they threw them in concentration camps.
Now, I don't know what they did to the Jews or anybody else that went to concentration camps in Germany or Soviet gulags.
I guess they probably took their property too, but I know we did.
And we took it and we acted like it was legal.
And some $6 billion of German business, German-American businesses alone were stolen by the government.
This was before they popularized and legalized asset forfeiture for the police.
And they never gave it back.
After the war, those people didn't get their homes back.
They didn't get their businesses back.
So there were casualties of war, financial casualties of war, if you look at it.
They lost everything.
Not only humiliate being humiliated by being thrown into concentration camps and treated that way, but to lose everything too.
It's just inexcusable.
But needless to say, this asset forfeiture has become ingrained in our policing for profit system.
And that's why when people were talking about defund the police and everything, I wish they would defund the police as they exist today.
If they would get rid of the policing for profit, then they would get rid of asset forfeiture, which is totally unconstitutional.
It violates everything this country was built to say.
But people, you know, Donald Trump loved it.
His original first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, wanted to make it even more powerful, which is just mind-boggling.
Following 9-11, the Monstrous Patriot Act was passed, giving the government the right to further intrude into our lives.
It also created yet another abridgment of the First Amendment with free speech zones.
The Patriot Act gave sweeping new powers to law enforcement, permitting secret searches, surveillance of phone and internet records.
I think they can find out what books you've checked out from the library.
Those of you who still check out books from the library.
Without needing to show probable cause, as well as access to medical and student records.
Medical things should violate HIPAA laws, but apparently it doesn't.
Student confidentiality.
The Patriot Act passed overwhelmingly in the House, and the only senator to vote against it was Russ Feingold.
If you read why, his primary objection seemed to be its impact on people of color.
Not that it was, you know, that it was a huge trampling on our civil liberties.
And there you can see the free speech zone and restore the Bill of Rights, 9-11 inside jobs, stop chemtrails, all the stuff that we know is out there that people should be protesting.
Now, the Constitution was originally was made palatable by the Bill of Rights, I think.
And certainly people like Thomas Jefferson, who still my favorite founder, supported it because of that.
But the checks and balances were shattered not long after that.
The idea under Madison was that you created three separate equal branches, judicial, executive, and legislative.
And they were all three supposed to have the same amount of power, equal and opposite power.
It's equal and separate power.
And they were supposed to counteract each other so that the idea was that no one branch could ever have too much power because the other would serve as checks and balances against it.
Well, fortunately, from the very beginning, 1803, Marbury versus Madison, that was thrown out the window.
That created the concept of judicial review, which is something I rant and rave about all the time.
I don't think anybody else does.
It revolved around the final appointments of outgoing President John Adams, one of which was William Marbury.
New President Thomas Jefferson believed that Marbury and others should not be seated as judges because outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall hadn't delivered their commissions.
Marbury would appeal to the Supreme Court.
Marshall had by then been appointed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Despite being at the center of the controversy, he didn't recuse himself, and thereby, again, setting the standard for many, many judges to come, especially in today's day and days, where so many judges should recuse themselves.
Somebody like Lance Ito, for instance, during the OJ trial, didn't come out till later when it turned out that his wife was a police bigwig who had been at war with Mark Fuhrman, who was a key witness in that case.
And he should have recused himself because he was personally involved in that.
But so many other examples like that.
But the tone was set by John Marshall.
So Marshall, not surprisingly, ruled that Madison's refusal as new Secretary of State to deliver the commissions was unconstitutional.
This decision expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond its constitutional boundaries, creating the concept of judicial review.
American courts forever after were given the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson was the chief opponent of judicial review.
In various letters, he wrote, if, as the Federalists say, the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, then indeed is our Constitution a complete fela de se, act of suicide.
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all unconstitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism and oligarchy.
And the judiciary of the United States is a subtle core of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our Confederated fabric.
And those are all quotes from Jefferson.
He clearly, at least he, now, the Democratic Republicans as the leader of them, they certainly didn't have this in mind when they signed on to the Constitution and approved these checks and balances and the Bill of Rights, hoping they would be a check upon the power that was increased greatly from the Articles of Federation to the Constitution.
By granting extraordinary powers to the judiciary, this decision shattered the checks and balances envisioned by Madison.
As Jefferson noted, if the founders had wanted judicial review, they would have simply written it into the Constitution in 1789.
So he said, since then, we've had a series of judicial disasters.
And today, anybody that looks at the courts, I mean, I didn't put this in there, but you look at the lawfare that is now common that was popularized under Donald Trump.
And if you look at the cases that he went, again, regardless of what you think of Trump, and I'm a Trump agnostic, I'm not a fan, but if you look at some of those cases, and again, that's made possible by because judicial review gives such power to these judges and gives such power to these courtrooms that they're now able to bring their bias with them.
And we've seen it going back to my friend Roger Stone, who I think presented earlier in this conference, but his trial was a perfect example of that, where you had Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was a Democratic Party activist, who was openly hostile to him.
And the lead juror in that case was openly, publicly posting things on social media about negative things about Trump and about Roger Stone.
Now, this is a woman sitting on his jury, the head juror.
Obviously, if Roger Stone had been on trial for being a serial killer, they should have been granted a mistrial because of the conduct of the lead juror.
Nothing happened.
Judge Berman refused to even to say that there was anything wrong with it.
Perfect example of that.
You saw over and over again in these other cases of Trump cronies, Flynn and the others that banned people like that, always had hostile judges.
And again, they're allowed to do it because judicial review grants so much power in these courtrooms.
Our political system today boils down to whether a federal judge rules that something is constitutional or not.
Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, for example, one of the good executive orders he wrote early on in the second term, was instantly found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge.
That's that.
Over 100 judges have ruled against Trump's efforts.
Over 100 judges have ruled against Trump's efforts to deport illegal immigrants.
In 1994, California overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13.
I'm a big direct democracy guy in terms of popular referendums.
That's one way to circumvent this elitist system that's got a hold of things, which very reasonably mandated that illegal immigrants couldn't receive any government benefits.
And that's how you solve the illegal immigrant process.
You just simply make it impossible for them to get government benefits if they're heel egally.
Very sensible, but we can't seem to do that.
Predictably, a federal judge overruled it, thwarting the clear will of the people.
Millions, how many millions of people voted in California for that to become law?
And one unelected judge is able to overturn it.
Something's very wrong with that.
That's not what the founders had intended.
And that's not what a free country would be doing, regardless.
The founders absolutely never intended the courts to be able to overturn acts of Congress.
The Constitution, in fact, grants more specific powers to Congress than the other two branches.
However, Congress has allowed itself to become by far the weakest of the three branches.
They're the weak sister here by far.
They are constitutionally obligated to declare war, for example, and yet they haven't done so since World War II.
And how many wars have we been engaged in since World War II?
How many skirmishes?
And they're all undeclared wars because Congress is the only authority that has the right, the authority to declare war, and they haven't done so since World War II.
So they've dropped the ball there.
The other two branches have taken too much power and Congress has allowed itself to lay back and not even perform the duties that they're supposed to in the Constitution.
No public figure has really criticized judicial review since Martin Van Buren.
That's until me, I guess, with whatever platform I have.
Both Democrats and Republicans place all their political hopes on whether or not they can have their proposals heard by a friendly judge.
One unelected individual having some inordinate power contradicts any notion that we are either a constitutional republic or a representative democracy.
And think about that.
You'll see the right, the left both, let's get this into court, which means let's get this before a judge.
And hope that, you know, if you're a Trump supporter, hope that it was supported by Trump, that the judge was appointed by Trump and vice versa.
Obviously, on the left, you want somebody appointed by Obama or Clinton or whatever.
Okay.
Central bank.
In the early days of the Republic, the key point of contention between the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans.
I don't know how that Jeff got in there.
Was the issue of a central bank.
I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity for on a large scale, Jefferson noted.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Jefferson wrote in another letter, the issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
The author in the Declaration of Independence declared, this central bank battle raged for a long time with Andrew Jackson picking up Jefferson's mantle.
But eventually, the private Federal Reserve System was created in 1913, giving the statist Hamiltonians an important victory.
Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, George Mason, others would shed tears over our instituting the Fed system of legalized counterfeiting.
I say legalized counterfeiting because, again, not everybody understands how it works.
They used to call it a fractional reserve system, where they used to have to have, at one point, they had 10%, they had to have 10% reserves on hand.
So in other words, if you went to get a loan for anything, the bank had to have 10% of that amount of the loan.
If you wanted to borrow $50,000, they had to have $5,000 on hand to back it up, which was ridiculous enough because that meant that the other $45,000 was created out of nothing.
Where did that come from?
Then they just scrapped the 10%.
I don't believe there are any fractional reserves now at all.
So every time you get a loan, if you get a mortgage, you get a car loan, note, whatever, personal loan, it's created by the stroke of a pen.
Now, if individuals do that, if individuals do something with money that isn't money that they created themselves, they go to jail.
However, every bank in our Federal Reserve System, which is every bank, every time they make a loan, they're legally counterfeiting because they're loaning people money they don't have.
And then they charge people imaginary interest on top of it.
So you can see how impossible the debt is.
That's why I've said for a long time when people complain about the national debt, and Alexander Hamilton was the father of debt, by the way.
He's the one that, against Jefferson and all the others, got the federal government to assume the debt of the states from the Revolutionary War.
Every time that it happens, again, there's just, it's clearly you couldn't bring all the money in if you tried because it's imaginary.
And that's why our national debt should be repudiated.
We have no obligation to pay that.
We had nothing to do with it.
And it's fiat money.
It's not even real anyhow.
So how many politicians do you hear say that?
War between the states.
And that's what things, you know, they call a lot of people call the war between the states the second American Revolution.
And in many ways it was.
Because unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln came along and overturned everything good that the founders had intended.
The guiding principle of the war for independence was that all people have a right to consent to those who govern the consent of the government.
This is everywhere in what they were saying at that time.
This was why they wanted, because they didn't consent to the crown of England anymore.
They wanted to consent.
And it was a revolutionary concept.
Hey, people have the right to consent to those who govern it.
If they don't like it, they have a right to alter or abolish it.
In 1861, it was clear that the Confederate States no longer consented.
And Lincoln despised the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson.
In my books, Crimes and Cover-Ups, the one I quoted before, and also American Memory Hall, I have lots more about that.
I have quotes from Lincoln's.
partner, law partner, William Herndon, and others about that.
I mean, Lincoln really hated it.
And how many Americans do you think know that?
Most people think when they look at Mount Rushmore and things like that, they believe that Lincoln was the furtherance of Washington and Jefferson and so forth.
But in reality, he contradicted it.
He was not.
He did not like what they were fighting for.
He did not like states' rights.
And Lincoln, like John Marshall under Marlborough versus Madison, John Marshall became the, introduced the concept of judicial review, which gave the judiciary far too much power.
Lincoln became the first imperial president.
He took on powers of the office that he wasn't constitutionally allowed to do.
After the war, the United States, previously referred to in a plural sense, would forever after be singular.
The United States is rather than are.
Most people don't know that.
Before that, the United States are because they were, as the Articles of Confederation intended, they were a loose confederation of states that were all sovereign, little sovereign nations that came together in a confederation for convenience, mostly for convenience.
But state rights was completely obliterated under Lincoln.
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which is, again, something that was, and people, it's unbelievable.
Civil libertarians defend him.
Well, we have the right to do it under a rebellion.
Well, there wasn't a rebellion.
The Confederates weren't trying to overthrow the government.
They just wanted to leave.
They wanted a divorce.
That's why I say, if you look at what we have today, we definitely need some kind of secession today because there are millions of people that are just not compatible with millions of other people.
We're hopelessly divided.
And there's so many people that would like to not be around the other side anymore.
But Lincoln set the precedent that you don't have the right.
This is not a voluntary thing.
It's not like a divorce where you don't get along with your spouse anymore.
You get divorced.
No, you can't do that.
Lincoln saw to that.
And he made sure that you couldn't by having almost a million Americans die, needlessly, killing each other, brother against brother and so forth.
And just horrible.
And there's nothing heroic about it whatsoever.
He arrested and jailed untold thousands of northerners without any due process.
We still don't know.
And I told the story, one of the people, I don't know how many people know this, one of the people that he arrested was a guy named Frank Key Howard, who was the grandson of Francis Scott Key.
And he had just simply criticized some of Lincoln's tyranny, you know, shutting down newspapers and suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
He wasn't even talking about I'm a Confederate or anything like that.
He was arrested along with some of the others, and he was thrown in Fort McKendree.
And talk about historical irony.
That is the same Fort McHenry where his grandfather, Francis Scott Key, wrote the Star-Spangled Banner.
So think of that.
How many Americans do you think know that Abraham Lincoln, our greatest hero, arrested the grandson of Francis Scott Key and threw him in?
I think he knew what he was doing too.
I think he purposely threw him in Fort McHenry just for an inside joke or something.
But just horrible tyranny under Lincoln.
He was not fighting to end slavery, as he revealed in an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.
He also talked about that in his first inaugural address.
And I published excerpts from of Lincoln's comments in the debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858.
And, you know, they're indistinguishable from the worst thing you might have heard back in the 1920s from the grand wizard, imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
But he was, not to be unfair to Lincoln, Lincoln was no different than most of the white men of his era.
He felt the same way about blacks.
He thought they were inferior.
And most, all white people felt that way then.
Now, you can look at that and say it's wrong, but it was reality.
But Lincoln was no enlightened individual.
He turned the war into a public relations battle about two years in with the Emancipation Proclamation, which as his own Secretary of State, John Seward, pointed out, you know, this is meaningless.
It frees slaves where we have no more authority.
He freed the slaves in the Confederate states, which no longer recognized the federal government, but he didn't free the slaves in the Union states in the North.
So it was meaningless, but it was a public relations battle.
Lincoln was no, and I didn't put this in there, but one of the things I discovered when writing American Memory Hole was that Lincoln, as a lawyer, and Lincoln was a corporatist lawyer.
He represented railroads.
He didn't represent individuals very often.
And he took at least one case where he represented the slave owner against a runaway slave.
Now, again, how many Americans do you think know that?
This is honestly.
He freed the slaves, but he fought in court to try to force a runaway slave to go back to his master.
So think of that.
Lincoln was not what he's seeing.
We've been told so many lies about him.
Later, Lincoln would turn the war on God, whom he apparently didn't believe.
And I have a lot about this in Crimes and Cover-Ups and American Memory Hole both, where there's evidence that Lincoln wrote a rebuttal, a scathing rebuttal to the New Testament when he was a young man.
And when he was going into politics, his supporters found out about it and demanded that he burn it because they said, this is going to destroy your political career.
Lincoln was probably an atheist.
Now, you can say that's right or wrong, but if he was an atheist, it was really hypocritical and blasphemous in a way to be blaming the war on God when he didn't even believe in him.
So again, Lincoln was a crass party politician.
You can tell I don't like him.
But just very, you know, the fact that he's our secular saint of our civilization says a lot, unfortunately, about our civilization.
Lincoln was the first imperial president and shattered the checks and balances, just like judicial review.
Gettysburg Address.
Now, we're going to look at this.
Again, look at this.
We don't have to quote it altogether.
And it's beautiful.
It's beautiful poetry.
And lots of what Lincoln said was beautiful words, but they contradicted everything about the spirit of the founding of this country.
And they would have slapped the founders in the face.
And H.L. Mencken, one of the last great liberals, fantastic journalists, he assessed the Gettysburg Address brilliantly.
He said, but let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic, beauty, not sense.
Think of the argument in it.
Put it into the cold words of every day.
The doctrine is simply this, that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination, that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.
It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue.
The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination, that it was the Confederates who fought for the right of the people to govern themselves.
What was the practical effect of the Battle of Gettysburg?
What else other than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the states, i.e. the people of the states?
The Confederates went into an battle and absolutely free people.
They came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country.
And for nearly 20 years, that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all.
Talking obviously about Reconstruction, which I wrote about the horrors of and crimes and cover-ups.
And again, also in American memory home, it's just amazing what we allow to happen.
There are the people who were under South was under military rule.
No entangling alliances.
George Washington, the father of our country, in his farewell address set forth in isolationist credo that repudiates our bipartisan interventionist foreign policy.
Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances in any portion of the foreign world.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.
But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences, consulting the natural course of things.
John Quincy Adams once said, America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
Starting with the Spanish-American War of 1898, both Democrats and Republicans have done nothing but go abroad in search of what H.L. Meckin described as foreign hobgoblins.
The latest example of this madness are Venezuelan narco-terrorists.
And again, these are our foreign policy is so diametrically opposed to what the founders wanted.
It's just amazing.
Military-industrial complex.
The founders would be horrified at our bloated military-industrial complex.
A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not be safe companions to liberty.
That means the defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home, warned James Madison at the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
What, sir, is the use of a militia?
It is to prevent the establishment of the standing army, the bane of liberty, Elbridge Gary stated during the debate over the Bill of Rights.
Standing armies are inconsistent with the people's freedom and completely averse to the spirit of this country, Thomas Jefferson declared.
He dramatically reduced the size of the army during his presidency.
Even the usually statist Alexander Hamilton noted that standing armies are dangerous to liberty.
Again, just that completely overturned, because most many people that defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are also very patriotic and want a strong national defense.
The founders would have been horrified at a standing army, especially this kind of standing army, a Pentagon, and just all the weapons we have.
Donald Trump, after expressing his approval for Doge to audit the Pentagon, recently signed the first trillion-dollar defense budget, one of many disappointments.
What would the founders think of America 2.0?
Virtually every government agency today would have mortified the founding fathers.
Even the Federalists, who wanted a stronger central government, would have never condoned the bureaucratic monstrosity that has grown so steadily over the past century.
The Department of Energy, FEMA, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and Naval Intelligence, the IRS, they would blanch at our interventionist foreign policy.
They would all be considered hopeless isolationists today.
They would not understand affirmative action or DAI.
They couldn't even have conceived of the transgender phenomenon.
I mean, it's hard to imagine anything that where we could be, I don't know how to bring this, my picture back.
Where we could, how do I do this?
Okay, I don't know how to get my picture back here.
Okay, at the bottom of your screen, there is a forward.
There you go.
And go back to the slideshow presentation.
Okay.
Okay.
And put stop or whatever.
And then you're just going to have to, you know, go forward.
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
Pull down on the sidebar there and get to the slide that you were on.
Okay, the last one.
Okay.
Yeah.
Go to the very last one.
Okay.
Okay.
And click on that and then go back up to the slideshow presentation button.
Okay.
And from current slide, the second one.
There you go.
Okay.
So how do I just get off of it and not share?
Just bring myself back in because that's it, basically.
Oh, okay.
So you're finished?
Yeah.
Is that okay?
Wonderful.
That was an amazing presentation.
I got to tell you.
I mean, yeah, the things about Abraham Lincoln are just people have no idea.
They really don't understand what was going on.
A lot of things going on back then are going on right now all over again.
It's pretty crazy.
So let's see if we've got some questions from the panel.
I mean, not the panel, the chat.
Anyone got questions?
Please put them in capital letters for me so I can read them to Dawn.
Try not to spill my coffee again.
Oh, we just had a big earthquake by magnitude 4.0, six miles from Roanoke Park, California, and I'm right south of Roanoke Park.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, things were falling off my shelves, and I'm thinking to myself, well, I wonder if the internet's going to hold.
Wow.
So I got to go pick up a few things in the kitchen.
And yeah, so yeah, it was fun, though.
I got to write it out again.
Okay.
Well, glad you enjoyed it.
Yeah, I love my earthquakes.
Okay.
Anybody got questions for Don Jeffries?
Well, if they don't have something, I got a lot to say.
Your part about the taxes and the judicial system as we have it now and the no-free rights anymore about search and seizure.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just crazy stuff.
I'm telling you, you guys, people have no idea.
If we could go back to our Constitution the way it was written, we'd all be fine right now.
You know, so it's just, and the states not being able to get away from the government, we're almost hogtied.
You know, we can't get out of it.
It's crazy.
I mean, yeah, it is.
And that's it.
Most people don't know.
I'm indebted to knowing about Lincoln, Thomas DiLorenzo, who's been on my podcast.
He was the first guy in the modern era to, he wrote a book called Lincoln on Mask and The Real Lincoln.
And great stuff.
He did great scholarship.
And it is what it is.
Lincoln was my hero like everybody else, but I talk about him so much because he really is connected to the founding fathers because everything about the Civil War, it overturned what we said.
We really have not been the country our founders intended since 1865.
That was it.
I mean, because it never has been.
The United States is, as I suppose, the United States are.
And the consent of the government was forever shattered because any of us now, if we say we're not satisfied, and a lot of us aren't satisfied, what can we do?
You have to consent.
I see some of the stuff in the chat.
Yeah, yeah.
They wanted, let me read them because that way they get on the video recording.
Tell us more about Patrick Henry and his rat statement.
Well, that was, again, that was his comment that, you know, he wasn't going to go.
He had no interest in going to the convention because he wasn't going to go to Philadelphia because he smelt a rat.
That was his line.
And again, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, it's no accident that the most radical, among some of them are older, like Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, especially, was isolated and just treated terribly by George Washington.
And nobody knows where his bones are.
I found that out when I was researching crimes and cover-ups.
Thomas Paine, great man.
Thomas, he wrote Common Sense, the pamphlet that inspired the Revolutionary War.
But these guys were not part of the government.
They weren't governing anywhere.
And so from the beginning, the most radical people kind of kept away from the federal other than Jefferson.
Jefferson was about as good as we got.
And so it's that's that's about what I know of that.
But I don't think Patrick Henry was very happy about the even with the Bill of Rights.
I don't think he supported the Constitution.
Right.
I totally understand.
Okay.
Nearly all the schools in America today are cesspools of cultural Marxism, the public schools and the universities, especially.
Comments on that as compared to your presentation today?
Yeah, well, there's no doubt about that.
And they've changed a lot.
I mean, my kids are grown, but when they were in school, I don't know, 15 years ago or something, they've changed a lot since then.
I didn't see any evidence of DEI or certainly no transgender thing back then or critical race theory because I would have had my eye open, you know, out for it.
But now, apparently, that's permeating the schools.
And I think the only answer is to try to homeschool.
But unfortunately, a lot of people can't afford it.
But yeah, it's a shame because the public education system is today, it serves to indoctrinate because it creates servile wards of the state because people, I mean, I know just from talking to people, people don't, they don't just in history, when I talk about history, nobody knows even half of what I'm talking about because they don't learn this stuff.
Right.
They learn MC history.
And of course, they don't learn English very well either, if you can judge by the way they write mass.
You know, they have calculators.
So they're not learning much of anything except but they're being indoctrinated.
Wow.
Crazy.
Okay.
We've got a lot of questions, but only about a minute left here.
A question.
What do you think the odds are America will come apart through successionism or descend into civil war or Orwellian dictatorship?
That's a lot there, William.
Yeah, well, I, you know, I think we have to have some kind of secession.
I hope we don't have a civil war, but it might happen.
But as I noted, we tried that once before.
Some people did, and they told you you couldn't do it.
And almost a million people died as a result of that.
And afterwards, it was basically drummed in the head of everybody.
This union is not voluntary.
So it's going to take something to try to do it.
But I hope there's not a civil war, but something is going to happen.
It's inevitable because we have conflicting ideas and people just are not compatible.
Correct.
I agree.
Okay.
Monique says she was released three weeks ago from, in other words, I think she lost her job.
I think that's what she's trying to tell us from for telling a parent that pandemic was planned.
This goes back to your comment about everything is hate speech now and that there is no such thing.
So basically, Monique got fired for telling the truth.
Yeah.
Well, the truth is no defense anymore.
No, I'm sorry to hear that, Monique.
And unfortunately, it's happened to a lot of people.
And yeah, of my 10 books, Masking the Truth, How COVID-19 Destroyed Civil Liberties and Shut Down the World is Sherry Tenpenny wrote the forward of that.
That's the one they shadow ban the most.
It's, you know, it's really, really hard.
Lawrence is, will you read, please read the chat room comments.
I'm reading them as I go along, but Lorian's reading them.
Yeah, I need to do the questions, you guys, for the video recording here.
That's why I'm doing it.
So there you go.
Okay, John, we're out of time.
And thank you so much for this presentation today.
It was really fabulous.
I really appreciate you.
Thank you so much.
And come back and join us next year and be on all of our podcasts.
Will you please?
Well, thanks.
I'm honored to do it.
Thanks for asking me.
And my sub stack is DonaldJefferies at substack.com.
I saw somebody ask that, and that's where people can find me.