Why The System Wants You Focused On Ballots

In this thought-provoking video, we explore the concept of why the system wants you focused on ballots, and how this relates to the broader themes of freedom and liberty. The tree of liberty society has long been concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights, and the ways in which secret combinations and conspiracy can undermine the very foundations of our democracy. By examining the ways in which the system seeks to control the narrative and distract us from the real issues, we can gain a deeper understanding of the importance of staying informed and vigilant in our pursuit of liberty. The constitution is a sacred document that enshrines our rights and freedoms, and it is up to us to defend it against those who would seek to undermine it. By joining the conversation and sharing our knowledge, we can work together to build a brighter future and protect the tree of liberty society from those who would seek to destroy it. Tune in to learn more about the system and its true intentions, and discover how you can be a part of the movement to reclaim our freedom and liberty.

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

Why do elections matter? Do elections matter? A lot of times I talk to people and we want to make sure that we are reaching people where they're at, you know, and kind of figuring out, making sure we're not going, you know, dumbing it down if an audience is ready for something and not kind of going too far if they're not ready for something. And the old adage of, you know, the appropriate and effective way to win friends and influence others is not to tell them that their favorite people are Satanists. But the time is short and I think I might have to say that. Just kind of think of the, I want to make sure that we are not giving the impression that we're giving up. I think it's the exact opposite. And we want to make sure that we look at things the right way.

If you stop playing the game, are you quitting? Are you a quitter? No, you're just realizing the game is rigged and you're not going to play a rigged game anymore. And so that's really what I want to focus on tonight is the idea of not playing a rigged game and making sure that what we do is actually effective and not give up. Because what I've noticed is that people in the freedom movement generally have an activity, you know, rate of about two years. They burn out and then they give up thinking that nothing can be done because they didn't understand enough what the score is. And that's what my books and Invasion are all about is helping us to understand what the score is and so that our action is effective and so that we don't wear ourselves out but that we are people that are in this battle for the long term because we didn't get to where we are today overnight and we're not going to win this thing overnight.

And we have to understand that we're in this for the long haul. And so we're going to talk about how elections have been hacked and then what can we do about it. But I think that what we can do about it is going to be a little bit unconventional and not what you might be expecting. And some of you might call it treason. Some of you might call it extreme. But I think it's the time-tested path of what has worked throughout history. That's what we need to look at is not reinventing the wheel. Look at what has worked before and doing that again and not doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Why do elections matter? Do elections matter? In our book, Killing No Murder, so this book is a reprint of a book written in the late 1600s and was something that the founding fathers would have read. And it was written anonymously, as the title suggests, a little provocative title. It was against King Cromwell, which was a dictator. And explaining what is the Christian duty in the situation when you are ruled by a tyrant. And so in that book, it lays out some key principles. It says, By the laws of God and of nature, the care, defense, and support of the family lies upon every man whose it is.

But several families united themselves together to make up one body of a commonwealth, and being independent one of another without any natural superiority or obligation, nothing can introduce amongst them a disparity of rule and subjection, but some power that is over them, which power none can pretend to have but God and themselves. So this power to rule over them, there's only two people that can have that, themselves or God. Kind of translating this 1600s English. Wherefore, all power which is lawfully exercised over such a society of men, which from the end of its institution we call a commonwealth, must necessarily be derived either from the omnipotent appointment of God Almighty, who is supreme Lord of all and every part, or from the consent of the society itself, which is where elections come in.

So there's only two legitimate sources where a ruler comes from, and that's from God or from the people choosing that ruler. Okay, so if it's not those two things, if the ruler is not appointed by God, nor chosen by the people, he is not a ruler but an invader. So even if they were not, they didn't invade in the traditional sense of an invading army, but if they are not legitimate rulers, they are invaders and should be treated as such.

And those that are subject to that power are not governed, but are oppressed. And so this natural law principle goes over the idea of not just what does a tyrant do, which is important to understand, but just even before what a tyrant or what a leader will do as a tyrannical, but a tyrant can exist simply by him being in power illegitimately.

And so we have to ask ourselves, with elections, this is why it matters, because this helps us decide if our rulers are tyrants or if they're legitimate. So modern election fraud is well-documented. I'm sure all of us, it's why we're here tonight. And this has been something that has been covered a lot over the years. And in fact, it's not a new thing. It's interesting where Carol Quigley, who wrote the book Tragedy and Hope, if you haven't read it, I encourage you to either read that or Cleon Skousen's synopsis, The Naked Capitalist.

And in that, he's an insider. He's a part of the cabal. He's a part of the conspiracy. And he's been able to study the papers of the conspiracy. And he says that the conspiracy, what they do is they pretend that the two parties are separate and so that the people think that they've chosen a new leader. But the policy doesn't change. And that's how it works. And that's what we see with the people calling for election, calling and exposing election fraud. When a Republican gets elected, the Democrats scream election fraud, election fraud.

And when the Democrat wins, the Republicans scream election fraud, election fraud. And so, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It just means that it's on both sides. And so we go back to 2008 and this testimony before a legislative committee in Florida will help us start to understand what's going on. Mr. Curtis, would you please state your full name for the record? My name is Clinton Eugene Curtis. And where do you reside? Tallahassee, Florida. And what is your profession?

I'm a computer programmer. Would you please speak into the microphone so the audience can hear your testimony? I'm a computer programmer. Mr. Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections? Yes. How do you know that would be the case? Because in October of 2000, I wrote a prototype for President Congressman Tom Feeney at the company I worked for in Oviedo, Florida that did just that. And when you say did just that, it would rig an election? It would flip the vote 51-49 to whoever you wanted it to go to and whichever race you wanted to win.

So how would such a program, a secret program that fixes the election, how could it be detected? You would have to view it either in the source code or you'd have to have a receipt and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won't see it. He's talking about how he was, the job he had was to rig an election through the electronic voting system. And not only to rig it, but to rig it so it was close. 51-49. So that way nobody questions it. It's like, oh man, that was close.

And that he was a part of doing that. He was the programmer to do that. Now we fast forward to 2010 and another example of electronic fraud. John Warner's full-time job at Argonne National Laboratory is testing the security strength of the world's most sensitive areas. Oh, we do international nuclear safeguards. We break into real security systems. His part-time job is changing the course of fictitious elections on real electronic voting machines that more than a quarter of American voters use. These machines are modularly designed.

So you have a touchscreen. That's a module. And when I press the touchscreen, that's going to send a signal to the CPU. Well, the CPU is going to respond back with something. And all I did is intercept that communication flow. If I like the vote, fine, let it go through. If I don't, I change it. We believe that a very resourceful 12 to 13-year-old would be able to essentially produce these alien electronics that can hijack the machine. Roger Johnston heads up Argonne's vulnerability assessment team.

I think our view of at least the voting machines that we've looked at is that there really isn't much security thought put into these devices. Johnston says security concerns are not isolated to the way the machines are made. Often the warehouses where these machines are stored have fairly weak security. But almost universally, the machines are transported by third-party low-bid trucking companies where there's no background checks on these individuals. Often the machines arrive at a polling place and there's no one assigned for them or to take responsibility for their oversight. So there's often quite a period of time when these machines could be tampered with. We see here another example of the electronic side of the voting.

From every step of the way, it says a resourceful 12-year-old could fix these machines to get the result that we want. And that every level of, you know, from the factory to the trucking, all the way to where they vote, there's just easy access for these voting machines to be able to insert these hacks. So here we have a special report from 2016 talking about, have another expert and another background to talk about how the machines are vulnerable. Can a machine be hacked? I have demonstrated how to hack the ABC Advantage voting machines that we use in New Jersey. I unlock the back door. In 2008, he demonstrated how as part of an election lawsuit against New Jersey officials. He was able to change the votes the machine counted. I figured out how to make a slightly different computer program that just before the close of the polls, it shifts some votes around from one candidate to another. And I wrote that computer program onto a memory chip like this.

The good news is it's not something you can easily do from Russia. But the bad news? But the bad news is that it really is possible to do locally. Something to do locally and to keep the elections close. Then we have a professor in 2020 talking about electronic voter fraud. In every single case where a U.S. voting machine has been analyzed by competent security researchers, they have found vulnerabilities that would let someone inject malicious software and change election data. Every single case. I know America's voting machines are vulnerable because my colleagues and I have hacked them repeatedly. I've been able to do this.

I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this.

I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this. I've been able to do this.

I've been able to do this. And the way that works is election officials prepare that on a PC somewhere and copy it to the machines using removable memory cards like this. Election officials are going to put it in the machine like this before the election. But what our election officials don't know is that I, the attacker, have already infected that memory card with malicious software. Here are our candidates. George Washington or Benedict Arnold. Okay, so we have one vote here for George Washington. So we have three votes for George Washington.

Oh, a narrow victory for Benedict Arnold. One vote for George, two votes for Ben. Because the malware I inserted on the memory card has stolen the election. Well, here's a vendor that did the election programming for a large fraction of my state in 2016. Here are lots of nice high resolution photographs of their warehouse in case you want to break in. So if I wanted to break into this company, let's say I was the attacker, I'd probably start by forging an email from, let's say, Larry, the president here to sue his administrative assistant, asking her to urgently open an attachment. That malware could now spread to memory cards via PC's throughout the firm's network. But if the machines aren't actually online when you vote, there's no way to hack them, right? This is something that you hear all the time in the U.S. from election officials. Unfortunately, it's not actually true.

Those election management system workstations sometimes are connected to the Internet or the data that's programmed into them passes through an Internet connected system. So we're just one or two hops away from an online attacker. So we're just one or two hops away from an online attacker even without being online. Now we have, so, okay, electronic, right? Okay, we all know that electronic voting machines are bad and that there are troubles with them. So surely the paper ballots, that's the way we got to do it. We got to make sure we go back to paper, right? Well, let's look at the paper fraud that we see going on. This is right here in Utah. Here, the headline is, "Here's why more than 400 mail-in ballots won't count."

They mailed, they voted by paper, and they mailed them in to, and they won't count in Iron County. It says officials in Iron County are questioning how 415 mail-in ballots were processed after nearly all of them were postmarked for the day after Election Day, June 25th. County Clerk John Whitaker explained at Monday's commission meeting that he received a pile of mail-in ballots on June 27th. Nearly 415 of them had June 25 postmarked from the U.S. Postal Service Center in Vegas. 14 others also had that postmark in addition to stamps from Postal Service Centers in Utah. That's what Whitaker said raised his suspicion. He believes there is no way all of those could have been late. Tiffany Matthews was one of those ones that mailed it in on time. She claims that she dropped the ballot off in Cedar City at 2:00 p.m. on the 23rd. When she returned home from a trip later that week, she was told her ballot arrived late and would not be counted.

Now in that election, 415 ballots would have changed that election. Remember what we saw with the electronic voting? Keep things close. The 2,000 mules. Thank you. And here's a clip from that. So we're going to show you a couple of different ones. This particular individual we have in a number of different locations at a number of different times. He's actually a mule. This is the official surveillance video of Georgia. Absolutely. And so as the person pulls up, they don't even bother parking. Of course, it's the middle of the night, so why would they? He gets out, approaches the box. When people walk up with intention to cheat, they look around. They basically walk fairly quickly. They try to stuff them in. They try to get out of there. In this case, he drops a few on the ground. Pick them up, stuff them into the box.

Then he hustles back and hustles out of there. So this is what it looks like. It doesn't necessarily look like, you know, hundreds of ballots being stuffed in. You don't need a whole lot of fraud. You just need a little in the right places over time. What you're going to see is he approaches the drop box on his bike. He also has a backpack on. Pull the ballots out of his backpack. Finally gets that. Pulls them out. Okay, now I'm set. And he'll put them in. But you also see him get sort of frustrated as he starts to leave. Because guess what? At this point, they had started requiring the mules, apparently, to take pictures of the stuffing of the ballots. It appears that that's how they get paid. So they take a picture and stuff it in. They take a picture. Not a selfie, but a picture of the actual ballot going in. But this guy gets frustrated. So he actually has to park his bike, get off. So if you were there just casting your own ballot, what reason in the world would you have to come back and take a picture of the box? And he kneels down. Looking around.

Take some pictures. So we have here the ballot stuffing. So it's paper ballots. It's not even mail-in. They're able to stuff the ballots to get the result that they want. Now we have here another case right here in Utah. This one is in Richfield County. Carmen Turner was a poll worker or election judge, sorry. And this is an account that she witnessed firsthand. At the Tree of Liberty Society, we're not just studying history. We're restoring the principles that built free people. This movement isn't funded by corporations or politicians. It's built by people, patriots who care enough to act. Now you can stand shoulder to shoulder with us through YouTube memberships, a simple way to strengthen the cause of liberty while gaining access to deeper discussions, exclusive content, and direct engagement with the society. As a Patriot, for just $1.99 a month, you'll carry your badge of support. With the loyalty icons, custom emojis, members-only live chats, and priority replies to your comments. At the Minuteman level for just $6.99 a month, you'll get early access to new videos and all the benefits of the Patriot League. The digital call to arms for those ready to act before the crowd. The Sons of Liberty tier at $9.99 brings you even closer, with personal shoutouts, connections on social media, and every perk from the earlier levels.

And for those who wish to help lead the charge, the Founders Club, at just $19.99 a month, opens the door to members-only live streams, exclusive videos, and all the rewards of the previous levels, direct access to the conversations shaping the future of liberty. If you believe liberty is worth defending, not only in word, but in action, then join us. Not as spectators of history, but as participants in its renewal.

One of the things about the election is that there were no poll watchers. I think we four ladies were considered poll watchers, but no. We were election judges. And there was nobody there to monitor anything that anybody did, even us. My name is Carmen Turner. In 2018, February 2018, I moved to Richfield, Utah. I guess it was March. They were looking for people to be election judges for the 2018 upcoming primary and general elections. And so I volunteered. And so the election was June 26, 2018.

There were three other ladies there with me. And Rosalie was the lead. She had been doing this for 30 years. So she was the lead. And she, you know, was in charge of the other us, other three ladies. One of the people running on the ballot, his name was Stephen Wall. And he was running for county clerk auditor. The way that this story came about was that Stephen Wall was, had already been in the position of county clerk auditor for right about 30 years.

And so he was supposed to be, you know, as a candidate for the thing. He had to do all sorts of stuff to get his name on the ballot. On the day of elections, which was June 26, 2018.

I arrived there at 530 in the morning and we set up everything and made sure everything was running up and up and running. And so Rosalie, myself and the two other ladies took our stations and she assigned us our stations. And right about 10, 1030 in the morning, Steve Wall comes in. Oh, he was so disheveled, but he had just come in from the field. He was a farmer. And so Steve left. And then he came back right about two o'clock in the afternoon. He goes right to Rosalie and starts talking to her. And we, other three ladies, are in our individual stations separated by feet from Rosalie and Steve talking. At this time, I see Rosalie go over to a table that was set up for our possessions.

This was not to be used for people who came in to vote.

On this table was a huge, thick binder. And she unzipped it, turned the pages, which were, many of them were pocketed and zippered pages. And she opened this one zippered page and removed a pair of snippers.

And I'm just, I'm in a position where I can just sit there and watch her and, you know, I can see everything that was going on. So she removes these snippers, like, plier-like snippers. And she walks over to the ballot box, the metal ballot box that was being used for people who came in and just wanted to drop off their yellow envelopes, their ballots. And I'm watching her and she walks over to the ballot box. And she snips the lock. It's plastic, like a zip tie, but it was much sturdier than a zip tie. And she opens up the ballot box and Steve reaches in and takes out all the ballots. She closes the ballot box and puts a new zip tie lock on it. During this time, she and Steve are continuing their conversation, talking, talking. And Steve is holding a large bundle.

When compressed, I would think the bundle was about this thick, you know, seven inches thick when compressed. And so he was just busy shuffling these envelopes, getting them all to face the same way. He finishes his conversation with Rosalie and he leaves with the envelopes in hand. And I'm watching this and I feel like my jaw is dragging on the ground because this is highly, not just irregular, but illegal. They were breaking the law. So Steve goes up to his car and drives away. And I walk over to Rosalie and I said, Rosalie, I says, why did he, why did you let him take those ballots? And she says, well, he does that every time. And I says, you're kidding. I says, in the manual, it says two people have to continually have those ballots within hands distance.

You have to be able to see those ballots, but there have to be two people who walk away with those ballots. Not one person, but two. And her mouth dropped open and she realized what she had done. And she got her phone and went into a private room. And she was there for probably about 10, 15 minutes and came back. And she, you could see she was devastated with what she had done. And so she said that she went and called Steve Wall's secretary. But who answered the phone? Steve. So Rosalie asked him, why did you take those ballots?

You're not supposed to be alone with those ballots. And he told her, oh, I do this all the time. And then he told her that that when every day he would go to the post office and collect the ballots there. And he would do it alone. And she didn't know what to say to him. She was stunned that he was willfully and knowingly breaking the law. But the next day I called the attorney general's office, the state attorney general. And he said that this is done all the time in all of the counties. I said, but they're breaking the law. He says, yeah, but that's the way they've always done it.

Before I called him, I called the it's called the Richfield River, the newspaper in Richfield. And and Richfield is the county seat. And I called them and I told them what had happened. And they didn't want to do anything about it because everybody it's it's in the club. Good old boys club type thing, I guess. They didn't want to do anything. So, mail in voting, electronic voting, the box that you drop the mailbox, you know, the the voter in and the in person live voting has the issue. And so we see this last one, this last example where the individual is that's is in charge of he's the county clerk. He's in charge of counting the votes and he's running for office and he's alone with the ballots. And it's done according to the attorney general all over the all over the state.

So we see in all of the different ways methods that we vote today that it is ripe with fraud, which what does that do to our elections as a whole? Puts them into at least questionable at best. Right. So maybe the courts will save us. Right. If all of the other ways that we vote, the courts, they're the ones that are going to save us. So we see here in foreign. We have Venezuela. Their government, the United States, told Venezuela to release the specific data on the election. Who's election? Venezuela's election. They said the United States says Venezuela, you're we did some controversy going on in your election.

You need to release all of the the voter data to make sure that we can prove that this was a legitimate election. Whereas in the United States, you're a conspiracy theorist if you demand the same data here. Just recently we have the the Utah Supreme Court rejected Colby Jenkins last ditch bid to reverse Celeste Malloy's primary win. Because of what was going on with the votes not being counted. And then we have here Phil Lyman's bid to kick Governor Spencer Cox off the ballot and out of office. They dismissed the case without hearing from Cox side, citing a lack of clear legal or factual argument. Lyman says he plans to continue his quest as a write in candidate. And then just a couple of days ago, the Supreme Court again rules elections aren't public records. I'm sorry, the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals rules that elections returns are not public records.

So we're saying Venezuela, prove that your elections are legitimate. And in America, we're saying, yeah, that's you're not allowed to see that. That's what are you, a conspiracy theorist? So the courts are not the last ditch, you know, effort to get us a legitimate election. So I want to go over the history of how we got to where we are today in America. Because our elections were not always, of course, obviously not always done with electronic voting or mail-in voting. Probably most of us in this room remember when the mail-in voting wasn't a thing. It used to be a joke to vote early and vote often. Now it's just what they tell you on the news every day. And so we just kind of go over the destruction of American elections in the 19th century to now.

The installation of parties as state gatekeepers. The introduction of democracy into the Union. And then summary and solutions. So elections in America, your personal vote was a public record. So the exact opposite of what the appeals court had said is your vote was public record. Not just that you voted, but how you voted was part of the public record. Your vote was verified and verifiable because it was, again, part of the public record. You could see that you voted and how you voted. And that there was no actual ballot. We're going to go over that.

There was no actual ballot that you just look. You're like, oh, that's the name I remember. And you get to fill in the circle. You actually had to know the person's name that you were voting for. Heaven forbid. There was little of any party affiliations. So here we could look at a poll book from 1859 in Virginia. And so what would happen... Oops, let me go back. You would go before the election official.

And each, as you voted, you had to swear on the Bible who you were. And then you stated verbally who you were voting for. Everybody in the community could say, oh, we heard how many votes for George. And we heard how many votes for Benedict. There was no way for you to be able to say, oh, yeah, Benedict won. Because everybody knew that George won. Because it was in front of the entire community and it was written down. And a part of the public record. And we go to, in the 1830s, we started the introduction of the ballot box. Glass windows.

They're trying to still maintain the idea that it was... You could see, you know, there was no funny business going on. But it was still... You had these tickets that then you would just circle the name you wanted and put it in there. As opposed to being publicly declared. Who your candidate was. And then we started to... The political parties start getting in here. We have the union ticket. And then the greenback ticket.

These different Republican ticket, different parties. And so this was in 1891. The last state gives up on vocal voting. So we had vocal voting from 1790s all the way up until... The late... So for about a hundred years we had vocal voting. Where everybody knew what you voted. It was public record. There was no way for them to say that you voted for somebody else that you didn't vote for. And so now there are only secret ballots in America.

Now, today we've been kind of brainwashed to believe that that's a good thing. We need our secret ballot so that we're not pressured, you know. But we can see what... Just looking at the past, why it was so important for our votes to be public record. And for it to be stated. You just swear to before God who you were and who you were voting for. But then when we start to look at the application of this today, the secret ballots in America, in a different scenario. So now we fast forward and we have Louisiana in 1900s. They start to have these kind of ballots where you're just going in there and filling in the mark. So then we had the public record.

Your vote was verified. No visual multiple choice. Little if any party affiliations. Now, your vote is a secret. It is unverifiable. They're basically an advertising agency for the establishment. Only powerful parties really matter, as we can see on... Especially on the national and state level. Where today, basically, if you are a true constitutionalist, you're on... You're relegated to being elected to the city council.

And so we have political parties in America. The founding fathers were very much against this idea. George Washington's farewell address. The party served to organize faction to give it an artificial and extraordinary force. To put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party. Often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community. And according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-conservative The ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans. Digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them in the geographical discriminations.

Let me now make a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. And then we have John Adams says, "There's nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerning measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution." "Have this, has both of their warnings not been fulfilled today?" So we, they, they pretend that your vote is public record, even though the courts just said it wasn't. You get to go on the state's website and you get to track your provisional ballot. Was, was your vote counted? And you're like, "Oh man, I can tell now because I went on this website and it told me my vote was counted that this is a legitimate election." So you can check if your vote was counted, but what can't you check? How your vote was counted.

And that difference is, it's a distinction with a massive difference. So now just kind of, just picture this in the legislative arena. Right? The legislature, when they, a vote gets, when a, when a bill goes up for a vote, we know who voted, we know how they voted. You have the white, those guys didn't, didn't vote for that bill. The, the green is going to be yellow, it's going to be green and then the reds are going to be no. And we know who they are and we can hold them accountable for that. Now can you imagine if the next legislative session, I wouldn't put it past them, I'm not trying to give them ideas, but they just come out and they say, you know, this is top secret. You can go on the website, if you just type in your legislator's name and the bill number, they'll tell you that they voted. Just simply keep it to that.

Yep, your legislator voted or nope, he didn't vote. Can you, what would the people's response be? That would be obvious corruption and a cover up of our legislature's record. And so we need to remember what Stalin said. It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes. And in the state of Utah, ultimately we have the, an individual running for election is the person in charge of reporting, collecting all of the county's votes and puts it out there. And we have through other investigative reporters, like the two red pills, showing how all of the, the counties have worked together to, to make sure that they follow her direction. So your vote as public record, right? Ensured that your vote was counted and ensure that your voted, your count was voted accurately and ensured accountability, not only between yourself and your neighbors, but ensured accountability with elected officials that were in charge of processing the votes.

And so now we ask the question, well, if we just vote harder, right? We just need to vote harder next time. We're going to press that button even harder and we're going to have an even better result, right? Those rigging the voting machines, are they going to stop if you vote harder? How about if we vote harder? How about if we vote harder, are those stuffing ballots going to stop? How about those throwing out votes? Are those people going to stop if you vote harder? How about judges getting them to, they're all supporting the above. If we vote harder, is that going to stop all of that?

So hopefully just asking those questions helps us to realize the awful situation that we're in. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that we give up and do nothing. It just means that we stop with what we're told on the media to vote harder and actually doing things that have been proven to work in the past. So key principles we have to understand. Before we understand what will work and what will not work, we have to understand fundamentals that have been lost. We hear a term a lot in the Declaration of Independence, it's referred to as the laws of nature and of nature's God. Also referred to as natural law. And this is something that is just in my travels and talking to people is lost. We ask different questions that help us to reveal what, our lack of understanding what natural law is. They'll say, "Well, where is it written?"

Who voted on it, right? Because when we think of a law, most laws, legislature, a legislature will vote on a law and passes a law. So if it's natural law, surely people voted on it, right? So natural law, what is it? Where is it written? Who decided on natural law? We look at this ball. If I throw that, if we throw that ball, we throw a ball up in the air, what's going to happen? It's going to fall. How do we know that?

Natural. Experience, right? We've seen it happen. So now we ask the question, who voted on it? Did anybody vote on the idea of balls throwing up in the air and falling down? No. What if we all in this room, we got together and we unanimously voted, balls can no longer fall after being thrown up in the air? In the confines of this room, would balls stop to fall? No, it doesn't matter what we voted, right? It doesn't matter.

So natural law is something that's unchangeable. Something that's always true. No matter when and where you are, you have natural, right? The wheel has gotten more comfortable, a smoother ride, but a round thing rolls. That's not going to change. So we go back to the Declaration of Independence. They recognized, they understood natural law. They didn't wait for parliament to pass the Declaration of Independence. Did they all get together? The Founding Fathers, they all got together and they wrote the Declaration of Independence and they said, "Parliament, will you pass this for us?"

No, they didn't need to because they understood natural law. And some of the natural law principles that they enumerate in the Declaration of Independence, they call them self-evident. All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain enable rights, that among those rights given to them by God is 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 to these ends, protecting life, liberty, and property, and the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. This was a self-evident natural law principle that they knew and understood and applied. Didn't wait for somebody else to pass it.

So just recapping, right? It's obvious. I mean self-evident, it's something that's obvious. No matter what other people say, I'm not going to argue about somebody if they're going to say that the sky is green. Right? They're not honest people. So these are self-evident things that if somebody's going to argue with it, they're not honest, and so you're wasting your time by talking to them. That we get our rights from God. That's essential for us to understand because if our rights don't come from God, where do they come from? Government, right?

Government's the only other option, which means that government can take away our rights if they're the author of them. But we know, know that it's a self-evident fact that God gave us our rights, which means that anybody that tries to take them away is an usurper and is acting illegitimately. And that some of those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or the ability to accumulate and dispense of property as you wish. Government was created by the people to protect, not give them their rights. So we look at the Bill of Rights. What is the Second Amendment? What's the Second Amendment? Just kind of, what is it? Guns. Right?

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, does that mean that the government gives everybody a gun? I wish. I mean, that would be nice, but maybe not. That might go bad. But their job is to protect your right, not to provide it. That's a key distinction and a difference for us to understand. The next one is government gets its authority, its permission to operate from the people. It's a legitimate government. So that means, that's a great thing.

That's a great thing. This is a key principle for us to understand that we look at what government's doing. And we ask ourselves, so we gave them the authority to do that thing. So government, are they doing something that I as an individual am not allowed to do? We ask ourselves that question and then we say, okay, well, if I can't do that thing, how did I give them the power to do so? If I don't have a million dollars, I can't give a million dollars away. And so if I don't have the power to do something, I can't give that power to government. So if government is doing a thing that I'm not allowed to do as a person, that means government is acting outside of its bounds as an illegitimate government. If the government does things they aren't allowed to do, no matter what anybody else does, it is the job of the people to get rid of that government. To change it, alter it or abolish it.

Now, and this is most easily done if elections are legitimate through changing it, right? Getting rid of people and bringing good people in. But we see throughout time there were other individuals, other groups of people. They weren't quitters. Do we consider the founding fathers quitters when they left England? They're like, oh, you just gave up. How about the pilgrims? Were they quitters because they came to the new world? No, they weren't quitters. How about Moses and Israel?

Were they quitters because they didn't try to get the Pharaoh to, you know, we just got to write them a more sternly written letter to get them to do the right thing? And then the Mormon pioneers. They weren't quitters for leaving the United States and forming a new nation. They knew what their God-given rights were and they were not going to wait for someone else to give them what God had already given them. Those are examples for us. So where did they learn these principles? This guy's a guy with a funny name and funny hair, Samuel Pufendorf. If you've never heard of them, you really don't understand the founding fathers because this is a natural law philosopher and writer that all of the founding fathers read and referenced and quoted from. And so I encourage you to search out Samuel Pufendorf's writings to better understand the founding fathers, their intent, the context of what they were doing and what they were saying. And so he was in the 1600s. He was an expert on natural law and a jurist and historian most famous for his writings on natural law.

His writings were the cultural foundations of the movement for independence in America. He was a traditional Christian and dogma and doctrine. He was quoted by the founding fathers all of the time. And one of these quotes that the founding fathers knew well was talking about the uniting of political bands. How does government exist? And what are the principles behind a government that is legitimate? He says that they do this to form safeguards. So they form a government. They form a political band to form safeguards against the depravity of mankind. They recognize to be able to protect their life, liberty and property. They needed to be able to come together to protect those things. So to avoid that danger, agreeable men join forces by interweaving their interests and safety, forming confederacies for their mutual safety and support. To achieve this purpose, those who seek it should be firmly joined together. Those who seek it should be firmly joined together. So now then why do governments dissolve? Right? There's the Declaration of Independence. It's dissolving of a political band, of a certain group of people. Why does that happen?

Among those which join together to form a government in a country, it is absolutely requisite that there be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of the means of government. Why would he say that there would have to be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of and means of government? We think of George Washington's statement about government. He says, "Government is not eloquence, it is force." And like fire is a dangerous master and a fearful servant. And so if we're going to give a group of people this much power, we have to make sure that we all agree on the power that we're giving it. Because today in, we can even say in Orem, in Utah, in America, are the people in these political boundaries, are they perfectly united on what government should be used for? No. So what is the natural law, right? What is the result of a group of people that are not perfectly united on the means of government? Just like if you throw a ball up in the air and it's going to fall down. If they do not agree with themselves but are divided and separated in their opinions, they will be divided into parties and will clash. Now is that not the case that we see today? We see parties and we see clashing.

So what we don't want to just get rid of government just for willy nilly reasons. This is government, Declaration of Independence. "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." I don't like his tie. He smells funny. You know, you don't just get rid of government just for goofy reasons, right? "Accordingly, all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms which they are custom." The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. And so if we can bear this, we'll put up with just a little bit of nonsense just because it's just safer, easier. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism."

So you see a long train of abuses that are for the purpose. It wasn't by accident. They weren't just stupid. It was on purpose that they were designed to reduce them to despotism. It is their right. It is the people's right. It is their duty. So you don't just have the right to do it. It's your job. You are failing in your God-given duty if you do not throw off such government and provide new guards for your future security. So if you see a government, if we have a government, I'm glad it would never happen here in America, that is working towards despotism. But if that were to ever happen, we would need, we would have the duty to get rid of it. So what evils did they say were insufferable? Like this is this far and no further. It's willing. It's it we're willing to.

It's so bad that we have to do this this step of be willing to give up our lives. Frankly, people died. It wasn't like they they wrote a letter and the king was like, you guys are turkeys and just left them alone. Right? They know they they risked everything to be able to do this because what they were going through was insufferable. And as we go through these, I think what we'll find is that we have what's called normalcy bias. We've grown up under certain conditions that we're used to and we don't realize what people in other situations have done under the same circumstance that we are in today. So in the Declaration of Independence, the big breakup letter, it says that the key points that dissolve the union between the colonies in Great Britain. The first one was the king has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. So the government set up a bunch of new agencies and sit out the agency's agents out to the people to eat up their money, right? Eat out their take away their resources. Now, are we in that situation today?

In America, we have over 345 federal agencies, government corporations, quasi-official agencies, boards, commissions, which claim authority to write rules for individuals and businesses. Over 345 new offices that claim legislative authority over you that you did not vote for. Like not even pretend voting, right? There wasn't even a rigged vote for these guys. Now we go and we see other examples. The feds sting an Amish farmer for selling raw milk. Man, we got to put those Amish guys in jail for selling that raw milk. That's dangerous. In OSHA, they'll start fining workplaces $13,000 per infraction for violating COVID rules. Four companies were accused of violating COVID-19 health protocols were fined by OSHA. So do we have that same situation where the government is setting up these agencies and eating away our substance? Next one is he has affected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power.

So in the United States, the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, the civil power, and that a war can only be authorized for two years. And so, you know, that this really, no, that hasn't happened, right? No. So, Biden sent, this is a news article, sending an extra 1,000 troops to Afghanistan as Taliban forces close in on the capital. And another, Biden is boosting US troops to Europe because of Russia's war in Ukraine. So we have other examples, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, just the list goes on and on and on of military actions where just the pen and a phone of the president, he gets to have complete control of the military and do the exact opposite of what the founding fathers wanted to do of separate the civil from the military power. And so the last time that we've had a war declared by Congress, World War II, 1943, I think it was, '42, '43. And so we had all of the military actions that we've done have been in direct violation of the United States Constitution and bringing us towards this complaint that the founding fathers had against the king. Now, another complaint was, 'the king has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.' Okay? So, 'foreign to our Constitution.' Too often we don't realize that England had a Constitution and that Parliament and the king was violating the Constitution.

You read the founding fathers, you would think that they were talking about our government saying, 'oh, they're violating the Constitution again.' And so what did he call, what did the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence call these laws that they were being subject to, born in their Constitution? Called them pretend. These are pretend laws. So any law that is against the Constitution, authorized by the Constitution, is pretend. Are we treating these laws as pretend, as we should be? They're playing house. And so we have these other subjects. These are jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution. They're foreign to our government.

These are international bodies. And we have over 83 of these international institutions that do those same things that we're talking about with those other federal bodies that pretend to write laws for us. I don't remember even doing a rigged vote for the United Nations Secretary General, World Bank, USMCA. But all these regulate our lives in ways that we don't even understand. And so, yes, we are in the same situation here as well, where our government has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution. How about transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses? So if you break a pretend law, you're going to be charged with a pretend offense. And because, of course, you know, they need to send you off to make sure that they get the result that they want, they send you off to beyond the seas. But we have the same thing. U.S. citizens are being held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay and others foreign prisons.

So they send, they arrest American citizens, do not give them a speedy trial. They hide them off and they, just like we've seen with even, it might not be a foreign prison, but we've seen with the January 6th individuals that have been charged and just sitting in a jail without being charged or going before a jury of any kind. And there are black site prisons within the United States where people are just thrown, they're just thrown away and they throw away the key and nobody's ever hears from them again. So we have the same exact thing happening in the United States, but because it didn't happen to us or didn't happen to somebody else that we know, we either don't know about it or, you know, we don't care. Another one is, he has excited domestic insurrections amongst us. So the king, the government set up these, they set up the insurrections, they set up the violent protests. They cite, they, they're the ones that organize the, what looks like a violent action in the streets, because then they can, the government can then use it as an excuse to put their boot on everybody else's face. And that same thing happened all over the country. I did a special report for what happened here in Utah, showing that the Salt Lake City police delivered the police car to the protesters to be burned and turned over. And then at the state capitol, the, the instigators that work for the government, they were filmed on the news inside the capitol being protected by the state police, while the, the riffraff were pushed off the capitol grounds. And so we have the same thing. We saw this all over the country. Isn't it amazing that, you know, during the summer of 2020, every, you know, cities all across the country randomly had piles of bricks ending up in their, their downtown area.

The, and it's linked to, it's not just George Soros or some boogeyman private organization. It is our government that is doing this. So we can see, let me go back. So we can see just through these examples, I encourage you to go through the Declaration of Independence and look at all of the complaints that the founding fathers had against King George and ask yourself, are there any of these that we don't have today? But what about Romans 13 or if your LDS and what about the 12th article of faith? Don't we just obey the government and put up with it? Did the founding fathers, the founding fathers Christians? Did the founding fathers believe in the book of Romans? But they resisted the government. Why did they do that? Let me go through and see what some political and religious leaders say about our duty to obey the government.

And I would say to you to the apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes. Once those laws or practices have been sustained by the highest available authority, believers should acknowledge their validity and submit to them. It is better to try to live with an unjust law than to contribute to the anarchy. And we as Christian citizens submit to the governmental authority. We submit ourselves and refusal to submit constitutes resisting the authority of God. Romans 13 is the text that we are looking at under this heading of the Christian and government. "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities." That is an unqualified statement. It doesn't qualify who those governing authorities are and it doesn't qualify what subjection might mean. Therefore, we can conclude that we have an unqualified, unmitigated command to be subjected to the governing authorities, whatever they are.

It really wasn't consequential whether the Roman emperor was elected by the people, appointed by the Senate, or placed there by a military coup. It was not consequential whether the assertion of imperial authority by Caesar was just or unjust. It really wasn't essential whether the Caesar was a homosexual, a pedophile, a mother murderer, or a good man. The law is the same. There is no place for rebellion and resistance because to do so is to resist God. When I hear rhetoric like this that implies the state can't be trusted either, I'm sorry. We have to plant our faith in the state of Utah. Yes. And the pure, patriotic, and the highest form of patriotism, and the highest form of being an American, is to place our faith in state government. And for you to push against that on others is to suggest a form of lawlessness and a divorce from structure that is the most un-American thing there is.

So it doesn't matter if they're a mother murderer or a pedophile, we're supposed to obey them, right? It's the most un-American thing to disobey the government. It's like, they think we're stupid or, I don't know, they must think we're dumb. Because clearly that is not what the American founding fathers thought. They resisted the government at every level that disobeyed and violated the laws of God. So we look at Thomas Jefferson. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. I consider Thomas Jefferson to be more righteous than any of those other people in those videos we just watched. And he said that we are to be rebellion, we are rebellious to tyrants. So why did the founding fathers rebel if they believed the Bible?

Let's go look at the common readings, commentaries of the time. We look at Cato's letters. Again, another book that the founding fathers read. And again, written by people that were writing in a pen name because they were writing against tyrants. And Trenchert and Gordon wrote these articles that were quoted often by the founding fathers that laid out the biblical duty to resist tyrants. Another one is a Heim let loose and we have killing no murder that we have for sale in the back. So what is a tyrant again? There are two kinds of tyrants. The first one is, but no right to govern.

The ones we talked about in the very beginning where they either weren't appointed by God or they weren't elected by the people. Automatically a tyrant if you don't fit one of those two things. And then governs tyrannically. So you can be a tyrant even if you don't govern tyrannically. And even if you are legitimate, if you govern tyrannically, you are a tyrant. So do you have the right to govern? So by the laws of God and nature, right? Care, defense, and support of the family lies upon. And so we covered that in the very beginning.

It is our right. And if they don't do that, if they are not appointed by God or by the people, they are an invader. We need to remember that.

So are we living in a tyranny today? According to the definitions the founding fathers would have understood. So we look at key action items that we can do. We need to stop seeing and treating those whom the founders would call tyrants as legitimate. If we have no way to prove that they are legitimately in power, then they should be assumed to be tyrants. And they depend on you for thinking that they are legitimate for their power. And they fear you seeing them for who they really are. I am going to lay the case out for that. That they are afraid of you understanding who they are because when they lose legitimacy, they lose power. You just think about, right, if you knew that an elected official was involved in human sacrifice, would you obey them and their rule?

No, of course not. And so we need to understand who they are. And they are afraid of that. We look at Chief Justice John Roberts who ruled in favor of Obamacare and other tyrannical legislation. He says, "Simply because people disagree with opinions is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court." Well, how about disagreeing with your ruling according to the language of the Constitution? They want to equate you saying that they are wrong with a simple disagreement. But the Constitution was written in plain language. Words have meaning. Otherwise, they might as well just be a pile of paper and have no use.

We can read it and we can judge it and we can know if they are legitimately ruling or not. And then we have lots of news articles saying the same thing. A group of political assassins, right? They're not actually... They equate you challenging them to violence, to assassins, to killing them. So "Assassins is quietly threatening American democracy," a new book says. That's what we're seeing with political leaders who say a person is a threat to democracy. They won't recognize elections and that's unacceptable. So if you point out the fact that the voting machines can be rigged, if you point out the fact that ballots are being stuffed, if you point out the fact that they are throwing out votes, you are a threat to democracy.

I'm going to say the Founding Fathers were a threat to democracy. They said that we need that we were a republic and that, of course, they want to accuse us of being, you know, these, this violent ragtag group of people. Now we have the Brookings Institute putting out an article saying "misinformation is eroding the public's confidence in democracy." You have the propaganda saying it's a safe vote to make you think, "Oh, this is, you know, this is safe because it says so." They can't lie to us. That'd be illegal. And so they want to make you think that if you're, if you are pointing out the truth about the elections, that you are a threat.

It says, "One of the drivers of decreased confidence in the political system has been the explosion of misinformation and deliberately aimed at disrupting the democratic process." This confuses and overwhelms voters because they're confused because they, they look at the facts and then they watch the news and they're just confused. And throughout the 2020 election cycle, Russia's cyber efforts and online actors were able to influence public perceptions and sought to amplify mistrust in the electoral process." I'm not Russian. I've never been to Russia. I've never talked to somebody from Russia. "By denigrating mail-in voting, highlighting alleged irregularities, and accusing the Democratic Party of engaging in voter fraud. The big lie." So they are, not only what, what are they doing here is they are trying to malign individuals and they're also trying to pit us against each other.

If you're a, if you're a liberal, if you're a Democrat, you've got to hate these guys because these guys are a danger to, to our country. The 2022 primary elections included several candidates running for offices at the local, state, and federal levels are perpetuating the dangerous myth that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Trump and was rampant with voter fraud. The persistent retelling of the big lie continues to undermine confidence in the voting process and appears to be suppressing voter turnout. They are afraid of losing their legitimacy. The severity of the problem was on full display in New Mexico, where the Secretary of State sued a county commission who unanimously voted to not verify results from the state's primary election due to vague and unsubstantiated concerns about the voting machines used to tabulate votes. Although the New Mexico Supreme Court stepped in to move the certification process forward. So you have an elected official that's saying, "I can't certify this." And the courts say, "You have to."

So the courts aren't there to protect the electoral process. They are to protect the establishment rigging of elections. The court says, "Potential solutions to this growing challenge of democracy." The vice president of government, governance studies at Brookings argues that the news media has a major role to play in combating fake news. And sophisticated disinformation campaigns. He argues that the government should invest in media literacy so that voters can identify false information and stop its spread. So their solution to stop exposure of the stolen elections is to give government money and work with the media to combine together to make you believe that they are legitimate. Because if you understand that they're not legitimate, you're not going to obey them anymore. And they are afraid of that. Look at more articles.

Loss of Supreme Court legitimacy can lead to political violence. Eroding the legitimacy means that government officials and ordinary people become increasingly unlikely to accept public policies with which they disagree. Well, duh, right? That's your obligation to. Legitimacy leads to acceptance. In contrast, when people believe in the legitimacy of their governing institutions, they are more likely to accept, respect, and abide by the rules of the government, including the courts. Ask them to live under even when the stakes are high and the consequences are far reaching. They need you to believe that they are legitimate. They lose all power when you understand how illegitimate they are. Political scientists study populist rhetoric as a threat to democracy.

In recent years, increasing numbers of politicians across democracies have adopted populist rhetoric, criticizing the political elite and questioning the legitimacy of democratic institutions. So what is a populist? So they're really criticizing populist. Governor Caillou also called other people populist that he didn't like. So what's a populist? A member of a political party claiming to represent the common people. That's a bad thing, according to these people. And number two is a believer in rights, wisdom, and virtues of the common people. So if you believe in our rights, you're an extremist. Responding to concerns over the rise of populism and its potential threat to global democratic stability.

So believing in rights is a threat to democratic stability. These individuals produce a massive data set capturing the extent of populism in communications by political elites. So they're providing the elites with the tools they need to decide who is out there that likes rights, that thinks rights are important, that thinks rights come from God. Then we have the same thing. They don't want people undermining their legitimacy. So I write about the, in my book Invasion, about the Buckshot Caucus. And these are their logos that they use themselves. They call themselves the Utah Illuminati. Bragging about who they are. And one of their members, Todd Weiler, was interviewed on KSL, talking about the questioning of the primary in Utah.

But, you know, and I also was on a Zoom call on Monday evening where he, he answered a question and said that he believes that the voter machines, you know, if you vote in person, that they can change your vote after you cast your vote. So this is the election conspiracy stuff that we've all been hearing about for the last four years since the 2020 election. And number one, I don't believe it. I think our independently elected county clerks, 28 out of the 29, by the way, are Republicans. I don't think they're throwing the elections. I don't think they're committing felonies to get their preferred candidates. And number two, there's just no evidence of this other than conspiracy theories. And number three, I, having worked with Phil Lyman and liked him in the legislature, I'm just so disappointed that someone of his caliber and of his stature would make these baseless allegations and just try to undermine the trust of the Utah voters in our election systems. And just try to undermine the trust of the Utah voters in our election systems. And just try to undermine the trust of the Utah voters in our election systems.

So I played that three times. I wanted you to understand what their goal is, right? They are afraid of you not treating them as legitimate. They do not want the election system undermined because what does that do? It means you're not going to obey them when they disobey the law, the real law, the Constitution, God's laws. So they are deathly afraid of that. And then even right here, they have false solutions. This is an alert put out by the John Birch Society within the last week, talking about these fake things where it says it would require states to verify whether individuals requesting to vote are U.S. citizens. It sounds good, but it would unconstitutionally further federalize elections. And so they put forward a problem and then you have the reaction and then you have the solution, which grants who more power?

Them more power. And so we have to understand that what the real solutions are is not to give the government, you know, is the government the cause of and solution to all of our problems? Why are we going to give the people that caused the problem more power to try and solve the problem that they caused? It's obviously a bait and switch to give them complete control where they might not be. They might be lacking control now. All these things undermine us. These key action items. We need to stop obeying illegitimate rulers. And I lay out even more of the actions of these people and how really evil not they are Satanic. And I lay it out in great detail documented but noted in the books invasion.

These people are not only illegitimately there through the election, but once they get in there, these people are truly evil. So we look at how do we the key is to stop obeying them. So how do we nullify? We look at personal nullification. It's all throughout the scriptures. We look at Daniel, the king. He passed a law saying you have to obey the government. I mean, you have to pray to no one but the king. And so Daniel, right, what does Daniel do? Does he say, you know what, I've got to obey the law of the land?

Or does he say, you know what, what I'm going to do is I'm going to pray in my heart. And I'm going to pray in secret. And nobody's going to know, nobody's going to be the wiser of what I do. They're going to think that I'm obeying the law when I'm still praying to God. Is that what he did? No, he opened the window and he prayed to the whole world to know that he was not going to obey that illegitimate law. And he didn't care who saw it. He didn't care what the consequence was because it was the right thing to do. He knew that the consequence to just praying was death. And that it would have been easy to still pray to God and have no one know.

But he said, no, I want everyone to know. He was probably alone. We don't know of anybody else in Israel. Nobody else was pointed out of all the Israelites of disobeying the king. Daniel's our one example. And he was going against the mainstream. And he was saying, no, we're not going to do that. Same thing here with the three Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. When they were told to worship none but the king, they said no, they would not do it. And so they were put in the fiery furnace.

Now, if we are supposed to obey the law of the land, and if we are evil and wicked, as those pastors said for disobeying decrees by the government, surely they would have received a legitimate reward of death, either in the lion's den or in the fiery furnace. But no, we know that Daniel was preserved. And we know that the three Hebrews were preserved. And that God either sent Christ or angel to come and protect them. Why would they do that if they were supposed to just obey the law of the land, no matter what it was? Then we have the Savior. It was the law of the land to kill every newborn baby boy. Can you imagine all the other Israelites saying, "Well, you know, Mary, it's the law of the land."

And we have Jesus, right? He's coming over there and he's whipping and turning over the money changers. That Jesus, he needs to be more Christ-like. He's being mean to people. And then we have the Christians, the apostles, where it was illegal to be a Christian. Now, did Paul or Peter, did they say, "You know what? Okay, Christians, we need to obey the law of the land and we need to renounce Christ and we need to just be good Roman citizens?" No. They continued to preach no matter what. They were killed for it.

They did not care about the consequence for their actions on the earth. They were afraid more of God than they were of men. And so here's another example of nullification and personal nullification. Not waiting for the legislature to pass a bill saying, "Congress, you're not allowed to do that. We're not going to do it in Utah." We can do it as individuals, as we saw these other individuals in the Bible. But here's an example of Joseph Smith. He was in Illinois and he's in Ottawa. And he was a prisoner of the sheriff. And they stopped for the night.

And the sheriff came to my assistance, meaning like, it was not like helping him, but was with him and slept by me. In the morning, certain men wished to see me, but I was not allowed to see them. The news of my arrival had hastily circulated about the neighborhood. And very early in the morning, the largest room in the hotel was filled with citizens who were anxious to hear me preach and requested me to address them. So he's the prisoner of the local sheriff. But everybody in the community wants to hear him talk. And so the sheriff responds, "I wish you to understand this man is my prisoner. I want you should disperse. You must not gather here, around here, in this way." Upon which an aged gentleman, who was lame and carried a large hickory walking stick, advanced towards Reynolds, bringing his hickory upon the floor.

So just before I tell you what he did, you have this old man, I'm picturing him a little stouty, and he can't walk very well. He's got this walking stick. And he walks up to the sheriff and he says, "You damned infernal puke. We'll learn you to come here and interrupt gentlemen. Sit down there, pointing to a very low chair, and sit still. Don't open your head until General Smith gets through talking. You cannot kidnap men here. If you do in Missouri, and if you attempt it here, there's a committee in this grove that will sit on your case. And, "Sir, it is the highest tribunal in the United States as from its decision there is no appeal." They didn't say, "Well, I'm going to take you to court, and I'm going to let the Supreme Court tell me if I'm allowed to hear Joseph Smith talk."

No, he's like, "Sheriff, you sit down and shut up, and we're going to hear this guy talk. And there's nothing above us in this community that you can appeal to. We are the final say of the law here because we delegated to you your authority." Now, today, I can just imagine Sheriff Smith probably arrest him and charge him in contempt or some sort of made up charge to get him to shut up and go away. But this sheriff, because he understood at this early time in the United States his role and his power, Reynolds, no doubt aware that the person addressing him was the head of a committee who had prevented the settlers on the public domain from being imposed upon by land speculators, sat down in silence while I addressed the assembly for an hour and a half." So, is blind obedience to the government necessary? Should he have just said, "Oh, you know, it's the law of the land. I've got to go to jail now." No. They all resisted and they said, "Government, you are not allowed to do this, and we're not going to put up with it."

We need a paradigm shift in our culture today where this is how we behave instead of saying, "Legislature, pass a bill to protect my rights. Judges, make sure you rule to protect my rights." Because are they protecting our rights on either of those cases? No, absolutely not. They continue to rule to oppress. So, when COVID started, this is early in 2020, when they said that we weren't allowed to meet in groups of ten or more, we said, "No, you're not going to tell us that we can't peaceably assemble." And so, we didn't just get in our home working secret and we're going to just meet together in a group. We got a large group of people and we had a picnic on the lawn in front of the state capitol. And then when restaurants were shut down and you weren't allowed to go and you had to get takeout, we set up our own restaurant outside of it and we got everybody together and we met together to have a meal.

You know, pretty dangerous, right? And this is what you do. You don't wait for permission to do what God already said you could do. So, when we ask ourselves, this isn't just permission to go down I-15 and doing donuts. This isn't saying we can just do whatever fits our fancy. Of course, you have to protect, you know, the government's there to protect your life, liberty and property. So, when we ask ourselves, "Is a government acting tyrannically?" These are some key questions we can ask ourselves. "Is the government authorized to make this law in the constitution of the state or the union?" Are they even allowed to do this? If I were to do the same thing the government is doing, would I get in trouble with the government?

Does obeying this law violate my conscience? You should disobey that law. In fact, studies have come out that says you commit three felonies a day. We're not going to commit three felonies a day. Not three infractions. We're not talking about speeding down the road. Felonies. Things that can send you to prison. In this room, on average, each of us have committed three felonies today. Three felonies yesterday.

And we will commit three more tomorrow. And so, what I say is if there's that many laws, if we're that tyrannical of a place, that we are all committing three felonies a day anyways, we might as well do it with intent. Find those laws that are unconstitutional, that you're already obeying. Find those laws that violate your conscience. Think about it. And say, "I'm not going to do this anymore. I'm going to follow. I'm going to really not just study the Founding Fathers, right? What good does it do us to be hearers of the word only and not doers of the word?" We have to start taking, going on the offense and not just going always, always on the defense.

We have a shirt, "I'm a threat to democracy" on our website. And I think we should be more threats. All these people are calling us threats for calling out for what is the verifiable truth that the elections are illegitimate, which means our elected officials are tyrants. We need to be bold about that. Have a conversation with others and sharing this with other people. And we are destroying their legitimacy through understanding what they're doing. And so we provide these tools, like invasion, like on audio as well, as physical. And we have videos on the website, at treeoflibertysociety.com, where we go through and we document the tyranny that is going on. We document the satanic conspiracy that is being put over us today. We dare call it what it is because if we don't understand what it is that we are facing, we are going to keep thinking that if we just vote harder this time, we're going to fix something.

And so if we don't understand the problem, we're not going to understand the solution. Why the solution is as what people today consider to be extreme is necessary. If we knew and understood what the founding fathers actually did, we would call, I think most of us in this room, if it's a surprise to us, we might even call it extreme. And we might be critical of them, but we have to understand that these are principles that are biblical principles that we are supposed to follow if we actually want to have our liberty back. So we expose them. That is one of the first things. If we don't understand the tyranny that we are facing, we're not going to have the courage to do the necessary steps to resist it. And so we have to educate ourselves on this principle, lay that foundation, and then help others understand it. Build their foundations, expose this evil with others, pass all the videos to other people, get the books and pass them out to people so that other people are reading about what's really going on. And so they know what it is that we're really facing.

Because then when we expose them, it destroys their legitimacy. We stop obeying them because they are evil and they should be disobeyed. As the founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence, that we have a duty to disobey them. That in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and in other scriptures, we see a duty to resist tyrants and to disobey them. And to be the worst global citizen that we can be. So when we fear the government, there is tyranny. But when the government fears the people, there is liberty. We need to come to a point now where the government fears us. We must stop fearing them.