Member Training – The Contract Has Been Broken

Member training from March 31st, 2025. In this meeting, Ben covers the contractual nature of the constitution and what happens when a party violates the contract and what the Founders said to do when the general government violates it. 

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

TRANSCRIPT

Our kind Father in heaven, we're thankful for this day that we have to meet together, and we ask you to please be with us and inspire us in the things that we should do. And this is our prayer in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Kay. The contract has been broken, and I've talked about this before, and I'm bringing it from a different angle tonight. As a reminder, so as we're going through this, I hope we're all thinking about how do we apply this in this way? How are we building understanding of these principles that build free nations, exposing the conspiracy, satanic conspiracy, and building an effective resistance to that conspiracy? That is the purpose of everything that we do. And so hopefully that is the thought process as we're going through this.

You're asking yourself, how can I apply this to what I need to be doing? And this is in our boot camp, final boot camp. The America of 1789 is dead. And this is a hard pill to swallow because we love this idea of what we think of America. We love patriotism. We love the Constitution. We love the Founding Fathers. And we love the music that brings this... nostalgic swell in us that you know that this love for what was done for us and i don't want to take that away at all i i love the founding fathers i love the constitution i love those principles and that are eternal principles that those are not just for that document the principles contained in there are eternal principles i believe and um and so but what we need to understand is what the score is where are we at today so that way that will guide our actions because it you know it is very much different that if the america that existed in 1789 you know the passage of the constitution the adoption of the constitution still existed we just had little things that needed to be tweaked here and there then that would be a different course of action than the case of oh we've been lied to and that's not here anymore so what do we do and so we need to recognize where we're at what the score is so that our action is appropriate And we're not spinning our wheels doing something and trying to fix something that doesn't exist anymore. I want to bring us to the idea of understanding the Constitution as a contract, because that helps us to know what our actions are as well.

So we go to Article 7 of the Constitution, talking about the ratification of the Constitution. When does it become in force? It says the ratification of the conventions of the nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution. between the states so ratifying the same so again um i've mentioned this before and the john birch society started publishing a new pocket constitution that lays out this principle right here that it's the constitution for the united states not of the united states and so this is a constitution between states this isn't a constitution for a new government for a new government this is a constitution for existing governments those 12 or you know minimum of nine to make it go into effect that is it is a constitution between states so it is a a contract an agreement between these states on um on what this new power will do what this new union will do Then you go to Amendment 10 that explains this again. It says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. So as a part of this contract, we give somebody else a power. And that's a power that we have. And we said, you know what? We're going to give this power to somebody else.

We're going to enter doing a contract and we're going to give these listed powers that are specifically delegated. And they're reminding the government because government always likes to accumulate power. And so they're reminding this body that if you weren't given a specific power, you're not allowed to do it. We reserve it ourselves. We created you. We are more powerful. And so we decide what we delegate and what we keep. If they were the created, if they were the lower body, if they were just a subsidiary of this new general government, then they wouldn't have the authority to say what you reserve. This new big monstrous beast would say, no, I am the creator. I am the bigger creature. I am the one that tells you what you have and what you don't have. But they're saying, no, we've delegated to you small things. We're keeping everything else to ourself. That's the contract.

So these are the terms of the contract. reminding them what those terms are you get to do that anything else that's not there is ours well they wouldn't have the authority to do that if they weren't the more powerful entity okay so explaining this principle again Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky resolution nullifying some actions that he felt the federal government didn't have the authority to do he said that the several states who formed that instrument being sovereign and independent so the constitution's already been ratified and he's saying that each of those states are sovereign and independent have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction they're the creator they're the ones that get to decide when the contract that they made was in front was there was something that broke it there was an infraction against it a violation of it and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy so the several states they're sovereign and independent they're not they're not subsidiaries of this bigger animal they're not tentacles of the bigger beast they're the ones because they are the creator that have the unquestionable like they talk about unalienable rights right this is there is there no reasonable person in their right mind would say that the the creator doesn't have the right to judge when the thing that it created is going beyond its intended actions so he's reiterating the these facts it's a contract they're the ones that get to decide when that contract has been violated and then when if they decide as the creator of that contract that the contract has been violated that they they get to ignore it they get to decide because they're the creator And then James Madison in the ratifying convention, so this is going backwards a little bit in time, when they were talking about ratifying the Constitution, he said, clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article by any one party leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention to be dissolved unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.

So here's the contract we've all entered into. We are the creative parties. And so all of us, all of the different states, Virginia, New York, et cetera, Pennsylvania, they got to decide when the article, when any article of the contract is breached, violated meaning, that they can just dissolve it. They're like, okay, you violated it. We're done. It's no longer in effect. anymore because you violated it doesn't exist anymore they can choose to do that that's a declaration of independence basically or they can say okay we're going to force you we're going to say you violated the contract but i don't want to go to the extreme step of just getting a divorce i'd like to work with this i'd like to fix this and so we're going to enforce it we're going to say we're going to make sure you don't do this thing that you're doing because you're not allowed to do it it's a contract right So along the same times of the Kentucky resolution, we have the Virginia resolution written by James Madison, nullifying the same actions of the federal government, saying that this assembly, meaning the Virginia State Legislative Assembly, doth explicitly and preemptorily declare that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties. limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact as no further valid that they are author than that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact so it's a compact it's a contract and it is the states that as the creator of that contract they get to say when it's been violated and that it's you know explaining that it's limiting the powers of the the body that it created in the constitution.

So maybe an easier way to illustrate this, you know, being language that we're not maybe used to, I hope I've broken it down and explained it, but I'd like to maybe bring it out and illustrate it in a more modern term as a contract, right? We have an individual and he wants to build a house. And so he works with a builder and a contractor. And they enter into a contract together. They say, I want this done. The contractor says, okay, if I do that, you agree to pay me. So they have this contract where they have mutually agreed to different things. One has agreed to do certain work. The other one has agreed to compensate them for the work. They've entered into a contract. So we have the builder. He builds the house for the gentleman. It's what he's asked for. But he kind of gets the idea. He's like, you know what? This house would really benefit. It would be for the general welfare of everyone in the family that they have a pool. So I'm going to build a pool. I build a pool.

So now the builder has added a pool to the property. And shouldn't the homeowner be so excited because he's done this additional work and provided such great value to the property? and uh it's for the general welfare of everyone that lives in the home and so you know obviously it's it's gonna be something great well well no because it wasn't authorized in the contract and so the builder is uh has gone beyond its delegated authority they i've only given agreed to give you money if you do x i didn't agree to do anything if you did y and so that contract is now null and void If the work's not done, he has the right, the homeowner has the right to fire that builder and say, I'm not paying you for anything else. We're done. And I'm not paying you for the pool. And no court, as corrupt as they are, you know, with some exceptions of depending on who the builder is, but in general, no court is going to force the homeowner to pay for the pool because it was never part of the contract.

And so that is a violation of that. gets to he has the right to just boot that uh that contractor and that builder and uh and in fact he gets to keep the pool you know because that wasn't part of the contract and if he built the pool without permission then uh the the homeowner's not allowed i mean not allowed but isn't doesn't have to pay for it he's not bound by anything to be able to stick to that and he can fire he's nullifying not he can divorce or he can just nullify and so that that If we think of the Constitution this way, it helps us to understand better how the Constitution is dead because we see all the different ways we've talked about before of how the contract is violated. But even without a conspiracy, there are aspects that we can say that the contract's been violated. And so I want to go over some of those things.

Article 5 of the Constitution, the amendments preserving the state's voice. This is the ability, the most famous part or well-known part of Article 5 is the part of it that talks about how do we amend the Constitution. But that's not the part that I'm going to talk about tonight. I'm going to be talking about the suffrage part. So Article 5 protects the voice of the states. The understanding history and how power likes to accumulate itself. and centralize itself and to grow and take power from others. They wanted to ensure that the creator always remained stronger than the created. And so they put in Article 5 of the Constitution to ensure that the state, the voice of the states, the power of the states was maintained. And it reads in that no state without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. So suffrage is not a term that's used a lot today. If maybe you'll watch a movie about the early 1900s where they talk about woman's suffrage, the word suffrage means vote. It's representation.

So no state without giving its explicit permission shall be deprived from its equal representation. in the senate okay so according to this what if they you know in the in article 5 they wanted to amend the constitution uh the requirement i think is there's a three two-thirds or three-fourths it's it's super majority if i can't remember one's one's introducing an amendment one's ratifying it and i'm getting an excuse in my head right now but either way a super majority right so let's just say there's 100 states um and let's say 75 voted 75 states got together and they said, okay, we are passing an amendment that says that the states no longer have representation in the Senate. Because it meets the demands of an amendment to the Constitution. But this part of the Constitution is different. This says that no state without its consent.

Therefore, to change this, it would require the unanimous consent of every single state. So it's a much higher threshold, like adopting the Constitution, ratifying it. It only needed nine states of the 13. Those additional four, if they didn't sign on, they weren't bound by the Constitution, but it didn't need to be unanimous for it to go into effect with those that decided to sign on. But this part right here, it requires unanimous. Everyone has to vote on it. and if one of the states says no or even if they just said meh i'm not going to talk about it then it's dead they can't do it and so this is an important thing for us to to understand right this is the unamendable clause because it has to be unanimous everyone has to do that So why did they do this? Why did they say that no state was allowed to lose its voice? So that means not. And so what that means is, and this was changed by, of course, the 17th Amendment, where they went from the state legislature choosing a senator, choosing the senators, to now putting it as a vote of the people. They were sold on this idea, which is, you know, it is true that those state legislatures were corrupt.

And they said, OK, the legislatures are corrupt. So now we need to give it to the people. And so they passed the 17th Amendment saying we are now taking it away from the state and we're giving it to the masses. So why did they do that? So going to the Electoral College helps us to understand that. Let's look at these states. Let's look at California. California has a population of 39 million people. New York has a population of roughly 20 million people. then you look at states like alaska wyoming south dakota if they all combined together they would not equal even you know a tenth of the population of one of those states and so without the electoral college you would have three or four states because of their big cities and their populations telling every other state you know who the president is you would only you would only have um three or four states, deciding who the president of all of the states are. And so they said that's not going to work.

And so that's why the Electoral College, where it said, okay, no matter how big of a population your state is, you don't get to decide who the president is. And so they had each state have electors. And so we think of it today because of the propaganda that each state, you know, the population, right? You had to vote on who the president is. and whoever gets the most votes wins but that's not the case as we saw in 2020 not 2020 i'm sorry 2016 where hillary clinton got more votes but donald trump won the presidency because he won the electoral college even though less people voted for him and so that is a way that ensures that the states have their voice preserved where it wouldn't have happened otherwise would have turned out completely different And so the founders were very much aware of how are we going to protect the voice of the states. And so the same thing we see here with the, just look at this, not just the state of California, but just the city of Los Angeles with about 14 million, or was it 12 million people in it versus about 4 million in the state of Utah. So the state of, the city of Los Angeles, would have just exponentially more influence than an entire state if the founding fathers decided to do things by mob rule. And so they recognized the danger of something like this and gave us the Electoral College. Whereas the same idea, right, we need to protect the voice of the states where we take away making sure that the population isn't what chooses the senators, but it's the state that chooses the senators, the state legislature. Just looking at the state that I am in currently, you look at Salt Lake County, Utah County, Washington County, Iron County, and Juab County's population.

Now, before the 17th Amendment, you have Juab having as much influence on who our state senator is as Salt Lake does. And so that protects the smaller parts of the different states, making sure that um you know no matter where you live in the state you still are going to to have an equal voice and so that way your states your your u.s your state your senator in the u.s senate is not just representing salt lake but it represents the cities you know out in the more rural areas your you know your your toillas and and your hurricanes and your brigham cities and uh but And so the 17th Amendment turns this on its head where basically Salt Lake and Utah County chooses the senator for the entire state. Nobody else needs to even show up because even if all the other counties showed up, whoever Utah and Salt Lake County, basically even Salt Lake County almost, Salt Lake County and Utah County picks, it doesn't matter. Everybody else has no voice basically. in who the senator is and so it directly removes the state's representation in the senate so i mentioned the 17th amendment was passed and how it's the unamendable clause right we have the at the consul convention of september of 1887 it said it was feared that the three that three-fourths of the states might be brought to do things fatal to particular states as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.

To protect this, it was added that no state be deprived of its equality in the Senate. So they made it the unamendable clause. They said, no matter what happens, we're going to make it so nobody is deprived of their equality in the Senate by ensuring that the state, not the people, shows who the senators were. Okay, so in order that no consolidation should take place, it is provided that no state shall by any amendment or alteration be ever deprived of an equal suffrage in the Senate without its own consent. It has to be, you know, basically suicidal and say, yeah, yeah, definitely. I don't want to be able to pick. Why would I want to be able to decide who my senator is? I'm going to give that to somebody else. and so that was it was it was meant to be the intent of the founders was that it could never be amended but again we have the 17th amendment where the senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from each state elected by the people thereof not chosen by the state but elected by the people thereof and again i broke that down and showed how what that really means is elected by the city of salt lake and so the right we have the 17th amendment as proposed and you have the dark blue states these were ratifiers original ratifiers the light blue were ratified after adoption then those gray states they took no action they didn't say yes they didn't say no they didn't even bother to vote on it and then you have the state of utah that flat out said no we are not giving up our voice in the senate and so according to the article 5 of the constitution no state shall have its voice taken from it is both taken from it without its consent so we have here one we have these their vote taken without their consent seven was one two three four five six seven states have had their vote taken away without their consent that's a violation of the contract the contract is very specific and says you You don't get your voice taken away without your consent.

And we have these seven states that, without their consent, had their voice taken away. Therefore, it is a clear and present violation of the contract. And as we see from the founding fathers, that they said when any party violates the contract, the contract is null and void. It's dissolved. Or it's nullified. Those are the two options in a case when the contract is violated. You get to enforce it. They really ripped up. The contract has been broken, which means the contract is now invalid. And it's important to remember that they violated the contract, not us. So when we do this, what are some things that the state can do? The first thing is they just laugh. They're like, no, you're not allowed to do that. Why am I going to pay attention to it? Just because you all said that you wanted to do it doesn't mean you get to do it, right? The same idea of, you know, just because everybody in my neighborhood votes to steal my children away, that's a great way to get a bullet in your head. I don't care how many people say that that's going to happen. It's not going to happen. And that's what states should have done, especially states that specifically said no.

They just nullify it. And that's exactly what the founding father said in James Madison, Federalist 46. He says the means of opposition to the federal government going beyond its bounds. are powerful and at hand and so you know and this is in federals 46 so these are the letters that they wrote the articles that they wrote to convince the states to ratify the convention why why don't we need to be worried about the federal government getting out of control he says because the ability the tools that we have are powerful and they're right there they're at hand right they're they're easily accessible and they're extremely powerful to make sure that this doesn't happen he says the disquietude of the people that's one of the tools the people resisting the people making noise uh the people not you know putting up with it their repugnance and perhaps refusal to cooperate with the officers of the union so right they're repugnance they're they're being repugnant to it they're resisting it right the refusal to cooperate The frowns of the executive magistracy of the state, meaning their influence of like the governor and the legislature just saying, you know, I'm not going to support this and we're not going to go along with it. The embarrassments created by legislative devices. So like nullification, we're going to embarrass the Congress.

They're going to embarrass them when they go against the Constitution, which would often be added on such occasions would oppose in any state. difficulties not to be despised. So it's going to be really hard for them to be able to gather against the states to be able to enforce these things against them. So then he says the next tool would be a correspondence would be opened and then plans of resistance would be concerted. So he's like, you know, these people have the ability, the people have the ability to start to communicate amongst each other like we're doing tonight and put together some plans. to resist what's going on. These are the tools that they're saying that we need to use. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the party?

So he's like, okay, in the war for independence, you had this big body going against the small body and the small body won. But what's going to go if this happens again? This is a few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves. So if this were to be attempted again here, it'd be the exact opposite. And we were victorious with a small against a big. If we got big against the small, it's a no brainer if we will actually do it. So if we provide, if we use the tools that have been given to us, then there's no chance of the federal government going beyond its bounds. The problem is that when we said no or we didn't give our consent and they said too bad, we just said, oh, okay, darn it. And we didn't be disquiet. We weren't disquietists. We weren't repugnant. And we didn't refuse to cooperate. But just because we didn't do it before doesn't mean we can't do it now. We have the opportunity to do so now where we can actually maybe gather together to be able to say, you know what? No, we're not going to violate the Constitution anymore. These are our options, right? We are either going to dissolve the contract, but if you don't want that, then let's enforce the contract. Let's say we're not going to play by these rules anymore because if the contract can be violated, if it's like, oh, the statute of limitations, you went along with it for X amount of time, well, that means how can any of the rest of the document be valid? There's nothing to go along with anymore. If they can just say, oh, if you put up with it for too long, what part of it now?

Which part of it haven't we put up with for too long that's been violated? But they could say, okay, you see this line in Article 3? Yeah, that one's still valid today because we haven't violated it. And so you haven't needed a reason. But everything else in the Constitution, yeah, you guys have allowed us to violate it for the last 200 years. And so it's no longer a part of the Constitution. And we get to do whatever we want on those parts. That'd be ridiculous, of course. And so we have the option now to either enforce what's there or to divorce. Those are the options if we care about the Constitution, if we care about liberty, if we care about taking the actions necessary. So that's the ultimate response. But to be able to do that, right? To be able to start this idea of what he's talking about of setting up this correspondence between people to be able to gather up plans. first they have to know what's going on if you don't even know that's a problem it's being violated they're like oh what we have a contract i mean i i say i like the constitution you know i i blow stuff up every fourth of july and i make the kids say the pledge of allegiance and and uh and so yeah i love freedom but i've never actually read the constant the contract so i don't know when it's being violated and so a part of that right is to be able to actually move us forward and open up these these these uh areas of communication and to be able to gather up to make plans we have to expose what's going on which means we have to understand the constitution to be able to understand what's being violated and then we can expose both you know we teach people the constitution and expose where it's being violated and then when it's being violated we nullify and then we interpose we meaning nullify is ignore not help interpose means when they're violating someone's rights we stand between them And then, of course, defend. If they're going to come against us, we are going to make sure and defend ourselves unto death if necessary.

And so we need to remember, again, Thomas Jefferson's words that the sacrifice of doing these things, what does it matter in the long run? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And so with that, hopefully we understand. now another aspect of the idea of the constitution of 1789 really you know it's been violated umpteen million times which means either we enforce it doesn't it doesn't exist right now because we're allowing it to um to be violated and so we can either enforce it or we can move we can move on and say i no longer want to be a part of that i'm going to go build something with moral people that i can be associated with that we can we agree on what the powers of government should be and what it shouldn't be and we'll go ahead and gather over here And so those are really our options. And so we need to remember that when we talk about the solutions that we do. Why do I talk so much about voting harder is not going to work? And why do I say that doing lawsuits isn't going to work? I'm not being pessimistic. And like last week, I talked about the black pill. I'm not giving up. I'm saying don't do stuff that doesn't work. If we've seen for the past hundred and some odd, you know, it was 110 years now since the 17th Amendment was passed, we keep on voting harder and nobody's enforcing the Constitution. So maybe voting doesn't work.

Maybe there's something else that should be done. Maybe those things that James Madison talked about in Federalist 46 is something that we need to start doing. Or what the founding fathers did with the Declaration of Independence. What Pufendorf talked about or what Orson Spencer talked about with only people of like mind should be gathering together. And so if we understand what the Constitution is, we start to see where it's violated. And so that contract, what does that mean? That contract, this isn't giving up. This is recognizing your situation and then working on things that will actually fix the problem. And then being dedicated to that because. It is very tempting in the siren call of voting harder and the siren call of donating money for a lawsuit because that means that we don't have to really sacrifice. We don't have to put our necks out. We can just, you know, I can press a button and I've done my duty and I hope the Constitution's now followed. And we can see where that's gotten us, just taking that route instead of following what James Madison said is the solution. to fixing things um if you want to keep that contract so uh with that uh let's go ahead and open it up for uh raising hands comments questions i will go through the uh the chat while i wait for you to raise your hands yes larry the constitution is a treaty between sovereign states and that's the problem is we've been lied to we've been brainwashed to think that state means subsidiary and it's not right just Think of the nation, the state of Israel. It is an independent, sovereign nation.

And so when we think of ourselves that way, as the founding fathers did, we start to unwind the brainwashing that makes us think that we have to do whatever the feds say instead of they have to do whatever we say. Mark, go ahead. You just got to unmute yourself, Mark. Oh, wait. Okay, now you can unmute yourself, Mark. Okay. Yeah, I have about seven points. I don't know if I get to all of them. First of all, elections can work. We're more a thousand miles away from elections working. I mean, it worked for the first seven presidents. Well, when they're rigged, they don't work. Yeah, they don't rig. Also because of the ignorance that people are voting themselves into slavery. So they're using it as a means. i think one point i wanted to make here is we talk about hostile nations we all need to really think about that there's one nation or one government one government that's much more hostile than all the other governments of the world combined towards our states and that's the uh what madison called the general government the federal government they are at war with our our states or at war with our freedoms in the states uh back to the 17th amendment so The two solutions, if allowed, and I'll get to the if allowed, would be we do not allow a state populist election. Our state senators will not be, we will not, the states control the election. We will not allow for the U.S. senators from our state to be voted upon.

And then the legislature will vote upon and choose to. Now, the problem is if we send those in our legislature, put it on to Washington, there's a very good chance with the current government we have that they wouldn't seat them. They'd seat whoever they want to or nobody. So what do we do at that point? It seems to me the only option then would be secession. Didn't you think of any other option? No, absolutely not. Yeah, if you're not going to file the contract, then why still be together? Because that means you can do whatever you want. And so that means that contract no longer exists. You might as well just say, okay, I agree to let you be my master, and please make sure that boot is polished and soft. The other points are pretty quick. For those that don't know, we're really in our book club right now. We're studying Joe Wilberton's book of, what is it, Madness? What Degree of Madness? Yeah, What Degree of Madness, quote from Jefferson. Not Jefferson, Madison. It's from Federalist 46. Yes, I thought I said Madison. I'm sorry. Yeah, Madison. uh and uh we're going to finish it up this wednesday and really encourage you to everyone to come but the reason i brought it up uh i think we're going to cover the last what about 45 pages is that uh he does the author joe wilmington does a really great job of going into detail on the uh contract law and how it applies to to our Constitution in great detail.

So we've already covered those chapters, but I really recommend that book if you want to make that argument. We all should be making that argument. And the last thing, points here is, let's see, look at my notes. Oh, the Constitution for the United States. There was somebody on a talk radio show that said that he went to the, National Archives, I imagine many of us in the meeting have been there and seen the Constitution. You have the Constitution on both sides, two pages on one side and two pages on the other side of the Declaration of Independence. And you get in a line, you walk by it. I've been there two or three times. I've been to Washington many times because my brother worked in the Congress House. they he said they wouldn't allow you to stand for any length of time in front of it to confirm to because it's very small print to confirm that those are the words it was as though they intentionally didn't want you to read that the constitution says for the united states uh and uh the only other thing i can wait until we get to the uh finishes up uh but uh i think that was the only other points thank you yeah i want to address um the uh thanks ken in 2016 uh comment there and um i assume that was tongue in cheek to thank you because uh for a couple of reasons yes ken ivory as rod pointed out is a conspirator um and uh the other part of that and not only that but the senate co-sponsor um you have here i'm going to share the screen is um al jackson uh the public reason for him uh leaving the senate was because his kid got accepted to basketball back east and he wanted to go be with him but uh he's still in utah and um the real reason why is because he was caught on the ashley madison website if you're not aware of it that's a good thing it was in the news um is a website that is dedicated towards people that are married to find people to have affairs with And so he gives talk about being a family man and liberty and all this kind of stuff. Well, the the tribune, from what my sources say, met with him and his wife and said, we won't run the story. We will save you the embarrassment if you resign your your position in the Senate.

And so that's that's why he's not there. So so we have two guys that are not liberty oriented that did a resolution. calling for the 17th amendment so what does a resolution mean he's like oh this is our we think you guys should do this oh you guys didn't do it darn it that's that's really stinky um as opposed to saying oh it's illegal we're ignoring it that's that any bill to do this would be say oh we are letting everybody know you don't need a bill you just stop doing it right you just you just appoint the next senator and if you wanted to you would issue a uh was a a joint resolution stating that utah is not going to be following the illegal amendment um that's all that needed to you know that didn't even need to be done but that's the only resolution that would be legitimate in this it's it's all lip service from those two individuals so yes mark go ahead you talked about the violation of the contract i think it's of some value for us to realize this isn't like putting a pool and they they put the wrong tile in or something almost every violation because the contract is set up to protect our rights is a major violation of our individual enable rights it's so that it's a declaration of war it's not just a violation of a contract Yeah, right. The type of nature of the violation.

So, of course, any violation is grounds to leave it. But the nature of their violations is as though that contractor climbed a ladder and looked over the fence at your neighbor and shot him. It's like they went into your home and stole everything in your home, all your jewelry and everything in the home, kidnapped your kids. I mean, these are the kinds of things that the federal government is doing. So it's not just putting in a wrong type of tile in your pool. Sure, yes, yes. Yeah, hopefully we don't take it to, you know, the analogy to diminish what's being done just to help us better understand the concept, yes. Yeah, and it's real important to know it doesn't matter how mild the violation is. Oh, for sure, yeah. Otherwise it's meaningless, right? If you're allowing one violation, why not allow another? That's right. In principle, you're right. Any other comments, questions? I'm always worried when nobody pops their head up. I'm hoping it makes sense.

Even if you don't agree with it, I'd love to hear the argument against what I just presented, but I hope it makes sense. I hope it'll help guide us in our activities and understanding more about why what I lay out as the solution in invasion is the solution that needs to be applied and is the solution that will work. if we do it um so if nobody else has anything on on what we talked about tonight we'll go ahead and have a closing prayer and um and then we'll have open forum and i'd like to ask uh carmen if you would give us our closing prayer please yes thank you

Father in heaven we're grateful for this opportunity to have been here we're like-minded and we're grateful for leading each and every one of us to this program. We're grateful for Ben and his massive efforts to guide us in the way that that has inspired him to teach us to go. And please bless him continually that he may be strengthened to hear thy voice, that he will know the next steps to take in in each situation that arises. We pray now that our minds will be in tune with thee, that we may remember these many things that were given to us tonight, that we will have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and to remember the things that are in there that need to be remembered. We love thee. We thank thee, Father. And pray these things now in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.