Member Training – Comments on Charlie Kirk Shooting & Constitution Day

Member training from September 15th, 2025.

n our meeting tonight, I reminded everyone of the importance of continually increasing our knowledge—of liberty, of God’s law, and of the conspiracy against freedom—so that we are not destroyed for lack of understanding. Using the recent Charlie Kirk shooting as an example, I stressed that we must avoid the noise, resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, and instead focus on principles, evidence, and the ways such events are used to erode our liberties. We examined how the media and government seek to control narratives, hide evidence, and advance tyranny under the guise of condemning “political violence.” From there, I shifted into the heart of our discussion: understanding the Constitution as for the United States, not of it—recognizing that America is not one republic but a confederation of sovereign republics. By recovering the original meaning of Congress, federalism, and state sovereignty, we strengthen our ability to defend liberty and resist propaganda that would make us forget who we are as free and independent peoples.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

Our Father in heaven, we are grateful to come together tonight for this Tree of Liberty Society instructions and teachings. We ask for thy spirit to be with us, to guide and direct those that present the information tonight and those of us that are to receive it. Please open our hearts and minds, expand our minds to be able to understand and comprehend all that is given. grow and progress in the knowledge of the truth we ask that you would help us to prepare ourselves to qualify ourselves to be able to be used by thee in the building up of thy kingdom knowing that you are in need of the people that are prepared and qualified for these last days please guide and direct us in these things protect and watch over each one we ask thy blessings to attend us this night asking in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Thank you, Sam. Now, Carmen, go ahead with the minutes. Okay. Yeah, not Captain Kirk. We'll be getting into, you know, it'd be kind of silly of me not to talk about the Charlie Kirk shooting, but there's not a whole lot, so it didn't really take up. It's not going to take up everything. And so, but I thought it was irresponsible not to at least talk about it and give us some principles to go after. So, and then we'll be talking about the Constitution. This Thursday, this Wednesday is Constitution Day. And it's important for us to learn as much about the principles that are within that and that need to be applied and that we need to go on the offense in implementing.

Can I add to this? I want to have us all remember how important it is that we increase our understanding, increase our knowledge base. And so the scriptures talk over and over again. I've mentioned I've done trainings on this. The fact that, you know, the reason why we are in the situation that we're in is because of lack of knowledge. And so it's important for us to be reminded every week, what have we done this week? to increase our knowledge either of the conspiracy, of the principles of liberty, of natural law, of God's law. And so I wanted that to be a regular reminder for us that we are taking a proactive approach to making sure that we are not adding to the perishing because of our lack of knowledge.

And then, of course, everything that we do is to build understanding of and adherence to the principles that have built free nations, exposed the satanic conspiracy, and build an effective resistance to that conspiracy okay so uh getting getting into the the charlie kirk shooting this last week uh there's a lot of noise going on and we want to avoid the noise we want to avoid the personality-based rhetoric and uh we're gonna going we're gonna we're going to get into principles that we should be focusing on and so As I bring that up, there have been so much noise out there, so many different ideas, so many different theories, different things have been brought up as, you know, as, hey, we know this is what actually happened. No, this is what happened. There are things that, you know, in the first couple of days, I was like, whoa, you know, I think this is actually what happened. And then as more data came out, I said, you know what, I need to change my mind.

That's not what it is. um we're at a point where there are things uh related that uh to this that i can say that i kind of lean towards believing right now but there is nothing about this that i am willing to say this is the tree of liberty society position i've talked about this in the past right we start off with you know i just don't know there's there's things we just don't know about and that's not just with with this but as as something new comes out right we start off with i don't know and then we say okay we've got enough history behind us i can make a i can make an educated guess to say this is the probability this is probably what happened and then the next step is you know i i am confident i know that this is true i just can't prove it and then there's the final thing which is what we usually wait for to go public with is i know this is true and here's the evidence So just give me an example of the previous one.

I am pretty dang confident that President Trump didn't actually get shot. I think there's a lot of evidence that shows that that was a complete fraudulent event, but I don't have the proof that where I'm willing to go public with it. But there is enough evidence where I think that that is where I... I almost could say I know that as much as I know anything. Yeah, go ahead, Mark.

Yes, I'm with you on that. There's so much circumstantial evidence. You put it together and logic says it's probably beyond a reasonable doubt that it was all staged. If you put the different bits of information and our events together, for example, the board. speeches, he doesn't have a board that he can hide under. The strips of blood across his face were like an instrument. I mean, there are so many things about it. I can't think of all of that right now that would suggest if you put them all together, logic suggests that it was almost certainly staged. And there certainly was a motive. Right, of course. And there's a lot of things that are popping up that makes me think similar things about this, but I'm not willing to even, you know, entertain that right now because there's just, things are just developing too fast. And I don't want to be a part of the noise because, you know, as things like, like I mentioned, there are things that have come up that I'm like, oh, I believed that a couple of days ago. I no longer believe that with new information that has come out. It's important for us to be willing to do that. And so that's why I want to focus on just the facts.

Yes, Mark. Yeah, I... Mark, this is your third comment. Pardon me? This is your third comment. Oh, thank you. I appreciate you can count. I think this is important. The reaction, potential reaction to this, we need to really look at that to try to resist and fight it and not fall victim to it. So gun control is one possibility. One thing that on the weekend... the talk shows we had cocks on there going on about social media uh one country in asia just recently banned all social media uh so going after freedom of speech uh i think it's uh wilson the speaker of the house was saying it's emotions that's the cause well if emotions are caused we are emotional then they have grounds to go after all of our rights important that we uh instead of treat us as individuals with individual rights yeah so it's important we anticipate and look at the evidence of where what reaction you're right give us that will advance tyranny. Yep, I'll be getting into that. You're getting ahead. Joyce, go ahead. Joyce?

I'm freaking all the wrong things to unmute my microphone. I can't figure it out. I just want to say, if anybody is inferring that Charlie Kirk was not killed, they're retarded. Literally retarded. And it infuriates me. It's important for us to make sure that we know what the facts are before we state the position. That's for sure. We don't want to look foolish. Fact is that man is dead. And it was a horrible, horrible crime. And yes, we should make sure that it doesn't lead to taking away our liberties. But it was live. I mean. It's just outrageous. We sound ridiculous and outrageous to even infer that he wasn't really killed. Appreciate that. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Real quick, Mark.

Yeah, the principles, you mentioned we need to look at the principle. We need to look at the principle of who these people or what these people stand for. You know, this man was obviously a wolf in sheep clothing. advancing one of the worst tyrants a country's had a long time, President Trump. Lindsey Graham was on one of the talk shows yesterday, and he said if it wasn't for Kurt, we would have never had President Trump. He was his lieutenant. He got a huge number of students to vote for the tyrant. So I think we need to look at these people, what they stand for. I don't think anybody here probably supports his murder, but, you know, he's supporting tyranny, and he's supporting tyranny sometimes in his debates as well. Right, we can disagree with somebody with not supporting their assassination.

Mark, you've run out of comment times, okay? Until afterwards. Let's have most of our comments until afterwards. Unless we have a real question. That needs to be clarified. I appreciate that. So with all of this noise, it's important for us to realize what William Casey said. He said, we're successful when the people don't know what's real. And that gets into some of the things that have been brought up already. There have been so many different theories put out there and so many different things that have already been debunked and some things that are still questions. And so this is their goal. Their goal is to when they have some sort of event is to make it so we don't even know what's real. And so there are manufactured events, there are different classifications. And so it's important for us to, I think there is enough evidence for us to say, I don't know everything, but I can say that this is a manufactured event of some kind. Okay.

So before we chop my head off, let's look at the different kinds, right? We have number one is complete fiction. Full and complete propaganda, no physical event. Fake pandemic is an example of that, right? Okay. Number two is a mixture of real and fake events. A carefully planned event executed by the conspiracy with actors and the beast media covered with careful precision, typically no loss of life and has bystanders believing the event from a distance. Sandy Hook and many other school shootings, the Pulse nightclub shooting. Boston bombing, Las Vegas concert shooting. Those are examples. Number three, a real event, but was orchestrated by the conspiracy. Terrible things happened. Conspiracy planned and funded the event. 9-11, Oklahoma City bombing, et cetera, right?

We don't want to look foolish and say that no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9-11. Planes hit the towers. The towers came down, okay? The Alfred P. Murrow building, was bombed we're not going to say that it didn't get bombed those things really did happen but the explanation of what happened is where the lie is right it's a manufactured event the government was involved in those things and the official line is a complete and utter lie okay and so when we see manufactured event we have to kind of see what what combination of these there are And then a non-manufactured event, but a big event that happens that people know about, right? There are completely genuine, a person not connected to the conspiracy commits an act. And so when we look at an event, we have to ask ourselves, you know, which four things does this event fall under, right?

And so I would say the completely genuine event is not a manufactured event, but the conspiracy, and the conspiracy usually, if it's a legitimate event, quickly has the event go out of our zeitgeist, right? It's not covering the news anymore. It's maybe gets a couple of days and then it disappears. The things that are a part of the first three are the things that are in the news for a long, long time. We're on 20 something years for 9-11, for example. And so those are the things that they want to bring up over and over and over again. So we're following principles and we're seeing, do any of these things fit things that pop up, current events?

So what we need to watch for are, of course, what happens to public support, what happens in the culture because of it, and what new legislation comes out of it. That's where we really need to focus on, especially before we know all of the facts. That's where our focus should be, not trying to come up with some new theory that's going to make us look foolish in the next day or two. I'll give you an example of some of the culture changes that they are working on with both of these shootings. We had the Trump shooting where they were all condemning political violence. Biden talking about political violence. You had NATO. talking about political violence has no place in our democracies. Other heads of state saying the same thing. Then we have here with the Kirk shooting, you have Kamala Harris saying political violence has no place in America.

You have another senator, Warnock, saying political violence is anti-democratic. You have the National Governors Association, which Utah's governor is the head of, saying we all come together in condemning political violence in every form. And then you have Cory Booker saying we must call political violence what it is, evil. So those are the political shifts. Those are the, not political shifts, but that's the cultural conditioning that, of course, they want to instill in us. That defending ourselves and the principles that are covered in Killing No Murder, they want to make you think that those are always wrong, that those are always evil. that you always have the opportunity to change things in the ballot box and whatnot, and that to actually defend yourself is always wrong. So there are things that are going on right now where they want to cover their trail. They want to make sure that the evidence is not... available for us to investigate. Similar things happened after 9-11.

There are videos that have disappeared. They immediately cleaned up all of the rubble and all of the building and all of the evidence and destroyed all of the evidence before any real investigation could be done into 9-11. Same thing happened with the Oklahoma City bombing and other instances. And we see similar things happening right now. with the Charlie Kirk shooting. We have lawmakers are calling to remove his assassination videos. Social platforms face pressure over graphic footage circulation. Lawmakers quickly demanded that the platforms take action. Republican Anna Paulina publicly called for Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and TikTok to remove the footage. She wrote on X, he has a family, young children, and no one should be forced to relive the tragedy online.

Another Republican from Colorado echoed the plea saying, I agree completely. I never want to see that again. I hate that I saw it at all. And I can definitely sympathize with not wanting to see it. But it is essential that crimes, the information is available publicly for people to be able to. go over the evidence. And the fact that they want the evidence removed from the public is very alarming and very concerning, and it is a red flag. Carmen. You just said a little while ago about how 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing, how everything, all the evidence was cleaned up and disappeared before they really got to do the investigation. And for some reason, this went through my mind. uh however many years ago what 15 years ago uh what's her name oh gosh i just had her name in my mind but she was kidnapped from her bedroom yeah oh yeah elizabeth smart elizabeth smart yeah elizabeth smart that people just invaded the home messing up and covering up and destroying evidence that could have possibly pointed at a sooner point in time. Is that what you're talking about? That's a great example.

Yep, absolutely. Anybody that doesn't remember any of the trainings we did on that, there was first responders that were part of the investigation that said that there was child porn on the father's computer. And they said, we'll just worry about that later. We need to worry about. finding the daughter and all that just went away. Really? Yep. Whoa, I didn't know that. Of course, I don't watch TV, so. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Mark, question? Just more evidence of what you had just said a moment ago about all the pundits, all these politicians talking about political violence. And I have an article here I won't read from, but it has Harris. It has Pelosi. It has Gavin Newsom. Trump said the same thing. We will not tolerate political violence. And they all said that within two hours of the event. So it's pretty strong evidence that they all got a script in advance to say that. Because that's not a phrase that's been used in the past to any extent. And yet they're all saying Republicans and Democrats alike.

And one last point on that. It's really important. They do love violence. I mean, Trump just blew up a ship at sea because he didn't like who was on it. And, you know, killing, attacking Yevon on a daily basis. Well, even their own citizens, their political violence is used every day against the people in the United States. And so, yeah, they want a monopoly on political violence. Yeah, it's okay for the government to kill people, but it's not okay for us to kill anybody that's supporting the government. And self-defense. Just as a reminder, everyone, we're limited to three comments during the one-hour meeting. You can make more comments as you want at the open forum afterwards, but during the meeting, we are all limited to three comments per person. Oh, is that a bylaw? I never heard. That was number five for you, Mark.

No, I asked you a question. I don't know about it. It's something that we brought up a few months ago. And so we're just encouraging folks to allow others that opportunity. So we want to just make sure that we are keeping it in there. So thank you. So continuing on, we have TikTok responds with removals and safeguards. TikTok confirmed it is removing videos of Charlie Kirk's assassination and outlined the steps it is taking to prevent harmful clips from spreading further. the company also issued a statement to cyber guy expressing condolences to kirk's family which is you know uh youtube confirmed it's removing graphic videos of the assassination while boosting authoritative news coverage uh they're prominently elevating news content so whatever the official story is they they they are making sure that they are removing anything that might be evidence and they are making sure that uh anything that goes against the official line will be hidden okay so we have government and um media sources working together to ensure that evidence is covered up and made unavailable and that only the official line is made available to the public at large so what else what are some other things maybe this is a distraction because it's there's so much focus on it where you have things that have never happened with anybody else before where you have entire sports leagues, giving tributes.

You have teams from cities that Charlie Kirk's not from, having giant events. You have multiple governments honoring him. I'm just saying that this is not normal. So the amount of coverage this is being given tends to say, oh, is there something? that they want to make sure is out of the news, okay? So what are some other things that happened the day before or maybe the day after, right? The day before 9-11, for example, you have Donald Rumsfeld testifying before Congress about billions of dollars missing, right? And so, and then all of a sudden, the next day- Trillions of dollars. Trillions, thank you for the correction. So trillions of dollars missing.

And the next day, Part of the Pentagon just happens to get hit by a plane or missile, whatever the case may be. So just as an example of what I'm talking about. Sam, go ahead. I thought it was interesting. So Sunday, I guess a lot of youth, it sounded like thousands, were flocking to the different churches. And you think about the different pastors. They've got to all be controlled by the conspiracy. And you think about the control that they have over the people. over the youth. And I think the one church they said had like three rows. It was like 1,500 people. more than what they normally have and it was it was really interesting to see that the other thing too is they weren't taping off the crime scene at all people were going in there cleaning everything up when do they ever do that right thank you so we want to look at one thing we have here the day before this is on the 9th the entire 50th birthday album for epstein was released including this card written by donald trump uh to epstein now of course trump denies it um some people are claiming ai but this is you know before ai was a thing um you know there are many many different things that are in there uh i say the preponderance of the evidence is yes donald trump gave this to jeffrey epstein and so you know they wanted to get that out of the news And then we have the day of the shooting. Republicans blocked the Senate vote to release the Epstein files.

So the United States Senate, controlled by Republicans, and we have a lot of our members here in Utah. Both of the U.S. senators from Utah voted to make sure that Epstein files did not get released. Same thing July 17th. The House did the same thing with all of Utah's. delegation voting to block the release of the files so um you have two major things that the the july event you know already happened but we have the uh epstein birthday folder as well as the senate vote happening on the same at the same time um is something that could very be possibly be something that they wanted to make sure and get out of the news cycle and you know get people to stop demanding uh the release of it because trump calling people stupid for still demanding the release wasn't really working it was backfiring so we've got to maybe get another distraction and so what was charlie kirk's position on epstein play this clip there's no volume oh okay thank you i'm going to make sure that i share the volume this time okay i'm done talking about epstein for the time being i'm gonna oops I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being.

I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, balls in their hands. I've said. So he wasn't, you know, definitely wasn't being a critic of the administration. He was supporting the neocon agenda. He wasn't an enemy of the conspiracy. Okay. So what we can, Kirk was not an enemy of the conspiracy. There's so much noise being created, designed to discredit the conspiracy exposure. A lot of fake conspiracies out there designed to make sure to look at us look foolish. And we want to make sure that we're keeping our eye on how the conspiracy has taken and takes advantage of the situation. This is what we need to remove emotion, remove attachment to individuals and personalities and maybe even our favorite theories.

And just look at the data, look at the facts and where it goes. There is no part of this that I'm willing to come forward and say I'm willing to stake my reputation on XYZ, except for what I've shown you tonight. Carmen, go ahead. Who is Charlie Kirk? I never heard of him until the day he was killed. So tell me, who is he? Why is he such a... Tell me. So he's a 31-year-old guy he's the head of. turning point usa they would go to colleges and they would debate uh college students on uh social issues political issues and have people come up to a mic you know and say why they defend uh transgender issues you know for example then charlie kirk would come up with some kind of a um uh you know a remark and then they'd make a video of it and then they'd spread those videos out to show that, hey, Charlie Kirk is, you know, on the so-called right side of social issues or he's a conservative, that kind of stuff. And so he was really popular on social media and had that college campus organization.

Thank you. Yep. So let's see here. What time is it? So I'm hoping that we can make sure that we stick to those principles and that way we can make sure that we are not accepting things that are false, but we're also not shutting out the truth. If the evidence came out for something that shows that the official line is not true, we need to make sure that we're willing to accept that, whatever it is. I don't know what that is right now. And so there's just a lot of crazy things. And so we need to be out there. We can talk more about that in the open forum, maybe Q&A. But I want to talk about the Constitution for the United States. Now, this is where we get into principles. This is how the rubber meets the road. How do we actually start applying correct principles and holding people accountable? And so this might sound weird or might sound petty.

It might even sound like a grammar Nazi. You're like, oh, we know what it means. Because most people, when you say that it's the Constitution of the United States. Why am I saying Constitution for the United States? And we see here, just look at the Constitution itself. You look at the preamble, and it says at the very end, it says the Constitution for the United States of America. So why did the Founding Fathers use that word? Was that just weird old English? Does it matter? Is there a distinction? Is it a distinction without a difference? It's important for us to understand that this is really the foundation. So what is America, right? A lot of people in the media, politicians will say we're a democracy, but I would hope that everyone here would say, of course, that's not true. And so others would respond that, hey, you know, America is a republic, not a democracy.

Well, I think I might shock you and I'm going to say that it's not a republic either. And I'm going to challenge you and I'm going to say right now, and we'll get into it later the the idea uh of america being that people will you know when we say we're not a democracy people will say the word democracy is not in the constitution right well the word is also not in the constitution the word republican is but it's never referred america the united states is never referred to in the constitution as a republic and i want us to understand why this is important As much as it's important, why we're not a democracy, the importance of America, the United States of America, not being a republic is just as important. So again, what is America? We go with the Constitution. Article 4, Section 4 gets into that part that I was just mentioning a minute ago.

The United States shall guarantee to every state... union a Republican form of government. Every state in the union is promised, guaranteed a Republican form of government. The Constitution does not say the United States is a Republican form of government. The states are sovereign and the general government is subject to the states and the general government is not sovereign. And therefore, it cannot be a republic. Okay? I'll get into that. What we are is a confederation of sovereign republics. So now I've given you the answer of what we are. Now I'm going to provide more evidence why that is the case. That is what the founding fathers said. And it is essential for us to understand why we are not a republic, but we are a confederation of what is supposed to be 50 sovereign republics. So before the Constitution, right, we have here the very first Congress, September 5th, 1774. You have the first Continental Congress meets, okay? And I want us to pay attention to that word Congress because I don't think we understand what that means, generally speaking. Representatives from 13 separate colonies met together.

So they weren't. right they weren't all part of they were colonies of england but they were not you they were not um intertwined together um besides their relationship to england okay so we look at the constitution again and it's talking about the states are superior they are not subdivisions of the general government okay go to the declaration of independence Talking about these colonies, these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states. Now, today we think of states as political subdivisions, much like a county. But that is not what that means, right? We see that today the only independent nation that is referred to as a state typically is the state of Israel. It's its own country, okay? 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. So is the state of Great Britain, is that like one of the subdivisions of Europe?

No, it's its own independent nation. And they're referring to independent nations as states, okay? 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 have right do. So they're saying each of us individually all have the right to do what sovereign independent nations have the right to do. Okay. So on September 3rd, 1783. King George did not sign a peace treaty with the United States. He signed 13 peace treaties. He signed a peace treaty with 13 sovereign nations, all separate, all independent. So does that matter? So does this four matter?

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Now, that might seem like, so what? That's old news. But as I bolded and italicized the word Congress, we need to understand that word, the definition of that word. What is that word? Right? Why did the Founding Fathers call it Congress and not Parliament? Right? Were they... When they said, no, we're not going to call it parliament, were they just being difficult and saying, you know, we don't want to be part of England. We're not going to call things, you know, the same thing that England calls things. And so we're going to come up with a different name for it. No, it's not at all. I mean, you think of New York, right?

New Amsterdam, all kinds of different things that were not original names to the United States. There's a definition of parliament. Okay. Go back to the. The dictionary definition of the time, the Samuel Johnson Dictionary. It says the definition of Parliament is the assembly of the king and three estates of the realm, namely the Lord's spiritual, the Lord's temporal, and commons for the debating of matters touching the commonwealth, especially the making and correcting of laws, which assembly or court is, of all others, the highest and of greatest authority. So it's an assembly of the king. is basically what a parliament is so we don't have a king so is that simply the only difference between a parliament and a congress is we don't have a king no congress has a strict definition as well okay we go back to johnson's dictionary and we look up the word congress what is the definition of congress when they wrote the constitution and they use the word congress okay an appointed meeting for settlement of affairs between different nations.

So when Congress meets, right, we have individuals from the nation of Utah, from the nation of New York, from the nation of Texas coming together for a settlement of affairs between them. The word Congress was very much deliberate and tells you that we weren't just independent sovereign nations before the Constitution. We are intended to be sovereign and independent nations right now with the Constitution. Again, we have Edmund Burke in a speech to the electors in Bristol in 1774, talking about Congress versus Parliament. Edmund Burke, right? Everybody remembers his famous quote about those that, what's it called? Stand up against, the only thing evil needs is for good men to do nothing. He said, Parliament is not a Congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests. Okay?

Parliament is not a Congress. Congress is ambassadors from different and hostile interests. Parliament is not that, which interests each must maintain as an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates. But Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest, that of the whole. Where not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole. So he's saying that these are very different things. And the founding fathers knew that they were very different things. You know, they, they changed definitions of words to control the speech, to make us think something that is true, that is not true. And so they, you know, that they think that Congress is there to, is an assembly of one nation with one interest, but it is not. It is different and hostile interest.

Okay, so yes, it matters. 13 sovereign nations come together to form a confederation giving a new government limited powers relating to the combined actions of the still sovereign nations, nation states. So if it was of the United States, that would mean it was for, you know, it was of this nation that created something. But it's not. It's for these nations that created something. of this new nation. And James Madison explained this very clearly as well. And the Federalists, if you remember what the Federalists are, these are the letters to the people to explain to them what the Constitution was, to defend it against detractors and people saying it was one thing when it wasn't. So James Madison explaining what the Constitution was and what it was not. So the act of the people as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, each, right? So right there, right there, he says, not as forming one aggregate nation. Each state in ratifying the constitution is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then the new constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution. Okay.

A constitution for a national constitution. It is not a constitution for the nation. It is a constitution that is federal. And now today, federal, not national? Again, that's an example of the conspiracy changing the meaning of words, where today those are almost used interchangeably. When you say the national government or the federal government, people would think you were talking about the same exact thing. But we have James Madison saying, no, this is a federal constitution. not a national constitution. So what is federal? Federal is relating to a league or a contract. So, whoa, oh, that makes sense now. It's a federal government. So because it's this government, it's a contract between separate parties agreeing that to do something. It's not a new nation. It's just a contract between a principal, right? And the contractor.

And so we defend the constitution. by understanding it, right? Looking at what the words meant when they were given, defending the independence of each state and keeping the federal government within its bounds by going on the offense, right? This keeping the contract within the bounds of the contract, okay? And so hopefully now we understand this principle. We will be better to able to defend the real principles of the constitution. And not the platitudes that people put out there of we need to be united as a nation. We need to be one people and understand that, no, we are not one people. We are not one nation. We are 50 sovereign, independent republics with very different interests, very different cultures, very different people. Each of those need to be defended boldly and strongly.

And we must not fall for the propaganda that destroys the liberty of the people by making us one nation. So with that, we were able to finish before 10 o'clock. So good. So let's open it up to some Q&A before we do open forum. So this is Q&A specifically on what we covered tonight. So feel free to raise hands. Mark. Back to the definition of parliament. So it was assembly of the different parties, you know, whether it's part of, excuse me, I think of regional governments, but as well as the king. So just because we don't have a king, can you still have a parliament with the assembly of the different nations?

I mean that is a definition of congress i understand but it seems like part of the definition still exists in america of what we just don't have but you're saying are you saying because there is no sovereign the the whole uh use of the federal government is not sovereign so it cannot be a parliament because it has to have a sovereign so it doesn't matter if you have assembly of the of the other uh regional branch of governments Yeah, because it's not, well, especially in ours, because they are representing different nations coming together. And so we're not a parliament. And that's why they gave that word instead of using parliament. And so from what you're saying, I know it's only symbolic. It seems to me we should have state atoms. We should have, our state flag should definitely fly above the national, or excuse me, there I am, the federal flag.

The federal flag, yes. And the question is whether we have a federal flag. honor a federal flag at all should we really honor it at all it's not a nation i mean well i mean you we you know i think with that you have the um with the war of 1812 and you know the national anthem coming out of that we were unified in defending our union and so i would in our independence and so in that way i guess you could honor it you know for sure but yes you know the founding fathers you know thomas jefferson said I'm a Virginian, not an American. And so you have that attitude was common in the founding era. And it wasn't until you get to the 1860s where you start really getting into the heavy propaganda of the one nation concept and getting rid of the idea. And then the states becoming subsidiaries as opposed to the master above this federal government.

So would you agree that it would make sense to have state Athens? It would make sense to put the state flag above the US flag? Yeah, state patriotism should be much stronger than national, or again, I said it myself. It's hard to get over the brainwashing, right? Our state patriotism should be above federal patriotism. NB, is that Nate? Go ahead. You got to unmute NB. Sorry, can you hear me okay? Sure can. Background music here. Sorry, just prepping some brass. So I had just a question comment on the Charlie Kirk situation. So similar to most of us, it's interesting where it seems like rather than being right, everybody wants to be first. First with, oh, here's the correct opinion. Here's what happened. Here's this. And I think you aptly termed it earlier that more often than not, you just end up looking like an idiot, you know, coming out with information way too soon. So I think there is that standard, right? Let's be right. Let's not just be first. The second thing that I was just going to discuss briefly is the principles of the conspiracy are multifaceted, similar to the tentacles on the book that you published, right?

I neglect who it was that said, you know, never let a good crisis go to waste. And then because we know, or at least I would subscribe to the idea that evil is everywhere. Evil certainly may be and certainly is independent of a worldwide global conspiracy that there may, in this instance, just something to consider. It may have been something that this individual did operate alone. But then the interesting thing is, of course, how, you know, because our media is controlled by one to three individuals, depending upon what resources you want to subscribe to, pretty easy at that point for, you know, the news media to wait 20, 30, 40 minutes, receive its marching orders, receive, okay, here's how we're going to spin it. Here's how we're going to use it. This is terrific. This is fantastic. And, you know, off to the races.

So that's all I was going to say is that I think it is critical to you know try to be right not just be first but also to weigh in in the idea that you know the the tentacle tentacles part of me of satan and those operations that he would seek to encourage very evil acts which you know it doesn't get much more evil than the gunning down of an innocent individual um and then how that was used is of course like extremely telling and myself as well like i've kind of find myself on both sides of the fence currently right saying like oh no this really is like a global thing and then going back and saying well maybe it wasn't a global agenda to create it but it certainly was and became very quickly a global agenda to manage it but therein like you said again like was it was it a global agenda to kidnap you know uh miss smart years ago i don't think so but was it certain was it certainly like an agenda on how to narrate that oh 100 so anyway yep i would agree thank you Yeah, Mark.

Yeah, for years I've referred to America as a constitutional republic, and you've corrected me on that tonight, and I haven't done it for a long time. But I think it's probably, and you tell me if you'd agree, accurate to call it a constitutional federal system, and then go into the fact that the federal government's contractual relationship with the states. Would you agree that it's probably... acceptable to call it a constitutional federal system? Sure, yeah, because it's, yeah, federal means like a contract, and so the contract is the constitution, so yeah, that's definitely accurate. Yeah, and there are Republican elements in it, you know, representative nature of the legislature and so forth, and there's There's even a small bit of democracy in it, but it's certainly not a democracy, and I agree with you. It's not a republic either. Yeah, and all of those elements are in service to the contract. So, you know, I've given the example of the contractor building the house for an individual, right? There are elements of different facets besides just a contract, you know, to every contract. And so just because... a contract as elements of different principles doesn't mean it's no longer the main thing. It is still a federal compact of independent sovereign republics.

And one comment on the democracy side, that's the elections. So the way I view the elections, the federal government, they're electing administrators. We're not electing anybody but administrators to administrate the Constitution. Does that make sense? Sure. And it's only with and it's the election is only saying, hey, when are we all because it's the federal government doesn't even control the elections. It just says when they are and what they are. But it is each left up to each individual independent nation to to decide how those elections are held and and what the rules are. And and so there's only just the the unity of saying, hey, when are we going to choose? these this congress these representatives from each independent country to come together to meet for this union yeah so there's two points here one is that the people the states represent uh elect the people uh the representatives but once they're elected then their responsibility is to administer the constitution yeah for and on behalf of the interests of their nation okay let's have our closing prayer And then we can get into the open forum and we can talk about anything we want to. Becky, are you available to give the closing prayer?

Our dear Father in heaven, we are grateful for this opportunity to meet and to be taught and learn to understand truths. We ask that that would please guide us and direct us that we will not be deceived, that we may know truth from error. that we may stand for righteousness and be example unto the world. We are grateful for our many blessings that thou bestows upon us and we ask you to please bless Ben and his family for his efforts to teach and help us to gain a better understanding of our roles and our rights and what we are to do to Try to bring back those that we have lost. We are grateful for all that thou blesses us with, and we pray for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Becky.