Sign Montana Permission Slip Secure

Document type sign permission slip montana secure

[Music] uh [Music] [Music] good morning and thank you for joining me on the path to liberty it's wednesday february 10th 2021 and today i hope to hammer home what i actually think is the most important maxim when it comes to advancing liberty through nullification or really any other means and that is we don't need no stinking permission to exercise our rights we need to learn how to exercise our rights whether the federal government wants us to or not so on this episode i want to run through some basic principles from the founding generation that your if you watch or listen to the show regularly you're probably pretty familiar with these but i've got a number of really good quotes from leading founders old revolutionaries like john dickinson thomas jefferson samuel john and abigail adams benjamin franklin and a few others i also have a couple of examples from north and south dakota today on some kind of we'll call them nullification efforts just to make it easy happening right now that i think are clearly missing the point of the entire strategy so i'm sharing those with you today so you don't fall into the trap of supporting things that are either just grandstanding garbage or just bad political strategy but first of all before getting to that my name is michael bolden we broadcast live every monday wednesday and friday at 9 30 a.m pacific time from here in my home office and studio in downtown los angeles for the 10th amendment center our show homepage has everything you need to follow this program all the archives for over two and a half years the individual episodes like today's i'm going to include a bunch of links and references for you to read and learn more on your own time i just scratched the surface with the info even when i blab for a long time on these episodes there's a lot to learn if we really want to win in the long run for liberty so i include a bunch of references so you can actually take things into your own hands we have all the different platforms and i mentioned these on almost every episode because in case suddenly you don't find us live streaming on one of the mainstream ones like twitter or youtube or facebook maybe you'll be aware that we're also uploading the archives to gab tv odyssey.com bit shoot and bit tube we're also live streaming on d live and hopefully we'll have some live streaming on odyssey in the near future it's censorship resistant and decentralized we also have the podcast audio only edition uh apple podcast pod bean i heart radio stitcher tune in all the main platforms and some of the smaller ones as well find all that and more including our membership program where you can put your financial faith behind our work for as little as two bucks a month that's 10th amendmentcenter.com path to liberty all spelled out 10th amendmentcenter.com path to liberty and while we're waiting another a minute or so for people to get notifications to join us on the live broadcast i want to say a quick hello to everyone that i can scroll through in the live chat a lot of people joining us today i really really appreciate you being here whether it's your first time or you've been here for every single episode uh carrie and neal thank you so much for your support tim tim martin in arizona casa grande funky euphemism up in the twin cities man i bet it's freezing dixie strong dhd liberty revolutionary good morning as well madden off blue north wind appreciate you being here in southeast texas or there in southeast texas clay kent israel marcus melody brian tyler b dan reed good to see you buddy mrgf shane lackey melissa harrell kimberly kimberly over on facebook magic magic fairy glitter goblin what up beautiful nerds that's that's the quote of the day or the comment of the day i appreciate everyone being here and i'm sorry if i missed anybody i will try to look through uh some of the live chat if i have a chance without going too long on this episode and answer some questions otherwise i will probably reply to as many comments as i can later on and leaving comments especially in the archive is one of the things that triggers these mainstream platforms their algorithm and it tells them to show the program to more people so the more that you say hi and put a thoughtful comment in there the more that uh they're going to show the program to more people it really does help out so let's get right to this and i want to start out you know the title of the episode is uh we don't need no stinking permission i think that's what i put it as we'll see but that really kind of sums up this view that we have pushed out here for quite a long time and it's not something that comes from my head but it's something that we post pretty regularly it's not liberty if it comes with a government permission slip and this is just kind of a reframing of a very important quote from thomas jefferson who in 1774 and i know a lot of you know this one very well you see it or you see it at 10th amendment center all the time you hear it from me all the time and that is a free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature and not as the gift of their chief magistrate that is so timeless a free people claim their rights it's not liberty if it comes with a government permission slip and that brings me to some important commentary on this from john dickinson who is known as the penman of the revolution i did a great episode on him this is actually one of my favorite history lessons on letters from a farmer in pennsylvania which were drafted or written by john dickinson initially in as anonymously in response to the hated alien sedition acts it really focused on a natural rights tradition of liberty and how to respond to government usurpation but here in letter number seven let me look at my notes this is yeah letter number seven he's talking before he gets to this quote that i'm going to come up with here in just a moment he's talking about taxes or duties and how some people were not too concerned about some of the duties because they were very small and they didn't have a really big effect on their day-to-day lives so the natural next question for the penman of the revolution is this who are a free people so if we're talking about what jefferson said some years later of free people are those who claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature and not as the gift of their chief magistrate this is basically summing up what dickinson was saying seven years earlier who are free people he said not those over whom government is reasonable and equitably exercised but those who live under a government so constitutionally checked and controlled that proper provision is made against its being otherwise exercise you're not a free person if government just happens to be not bothering you but still claims the power to do so or only is affecting you a little bit they're only restricting your right to keep and bear arms a little bit well it could be much worse and it's only time and dickinson jefferson and many others warned us that every time you give them a precedent they're going to expand it in the future we know this has happened all through history that's why in letter number nine jefferson told us this is again from letters in a farmer in pennsylvania he said that the way to be a free people the way to keep your freedom to protect liberty is to oppose a disease at its beginning you don't let it get out of control you don't let it like a cancer grow worse and worse every single day you have to oppose it at its beginning the best time to resist violations of your rights use or patience of power exercise of power by the government that is not authorized by the constitution is as soon as it's happened the second best time to do that is right now so number one is as soon as it's happened and if you missed out on that the number two time is today that's my view john adams had the very same type of approach in 1774 as well also i guess that was a big year novanglis he's writing as novanglis in the boston gazette this was kind of the the organ of the sons of liberty there in boston and he put it this way nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people soon as you let them take hold and atoms also at another time said it grows like a cancer use or patience violations of the constitution is like a cancer it grows and eats the body every single day that's why you have to nip it in the bud right off the bat here's samuel adams's version that i think is actually really important also in the boston gazette but a few years earlier 1771 he said the liberties of our country the freedom of our civil constitution and mind you this was the unwritten constitution at the time they referred to a constitution all the time before we had the constitution for the united states or even the articles of confederation he says the liberties of our country the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks that was his version of it he really talked about things in moral principles and duty and what you're supposed to be doing as a good human being as a good people now john adams his cousin said you know the only way to stay free is to nip it in the bud and samuel adams says it's our duty to nip it in the bud now if we jump a little bit forward to the ratification debates over the constitution in 1788 here's a guy in north carolina that most people don't actually know about his name is archibald mclean he was a you know he's a supporter and he put it this way what should we do when they violate the constitution it's going to happen we know that governments always try to expand their power but the question at this at this juncture was well how do you deal with it do you rely on the government itself to limit its own power well of course not he says if congress should make a law beyond the powers in the spirit of the constitution if they should i mean i think the statement should be well when they do but if they should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the constitution should we not say to congress you have no authority to make this law there are limits beyond which you cannot go you cannot exceed the power prescribed by the constitution this was the attitude that mclean was telling the people of north carolina we have to have this attitude if they do it he's not saying well we'll go to their courts or we'll throw them out of office or whatever he's saying no we're going to tell them you're not authorized to do this you're not allowed to do this you are amenable to us for your conduct this act is unconstitutional he said we will disregard it and punish you for the attempt so the mentality of founders like archibald maclean and actually many others i'm not going to go into too much detail on that right now was if they do stuff they're not authorized to do don't beg them to stop doing don't wait for their permission to start exercising our rights disregard it because they weren't authorized to do it in the first place and when you have that mentality you have that approach that is the constitutional check and balance which ensures that government can't exercise the powers and you can be a free people that was what john dickinson even well he was actually the drafter of the articles of confederation even though this was years before this was two decades before this is the same kind of a principle the only way that a government can exist where you have a free people is if it is so constitutionally checked and controlled that it can't get away with doing stuff it's not authorized to do and if people follow mclean's advice i'm jumping through all these things and disregard everything that the federal government does that is unconstitutional they can pass whatever the hell they want and it won't have any impact now this much more widely known maybe because the work that we've done over the years is james madison's same advice some months earlier in federalist 46 this was primarily so mclean was making that case to disregard unconstitutional acts or acts that the people of north carolina not that the federal government said were unconstitutional but those that the people of north carolina thought would be unconstitutional they make their own decision about the constitutionality of something and say well we're not going to participate in this we're going to disregard it james madison was making the case to a new york audience in early 1788 the federalist papers were not widely read at the time they did not have much of an impact on ratification outside of new york state but in federalist 46 as you're probably aware james madison advised as a strategy to defeat federal programs that were constitutional but bad policy or unconstitutional a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union that's madison's words not mine a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union we know that the supreme court surprisingly has gotten one right consistently i don't count on them with anything or everything i don't base any strategy at the 10th amendment center on getting court approval because even if they could wade through the 10 to 20 000 requests for cases that they get every single year and then the whatever hundred or so that they take even if they really struck down all of those every year when it's really only like two or three at best it's a numbers game against us but they're also part of the federal government and the federal government is the biggest government in the face of the earth so going to that same entity to fix itself is just dumb it's bad strategy it's a waste of money it's a waste of time at least in my view and the 10th amendment center is not involved in that we're working to learn how to exercise our rights the people of the several states whether the feds want us to or not and the supreme court has gotten this right and i've mentioned this a lot lately it's important to hammer this home and it's nice to have because as nullification legislation is pending in state legislatures you have a lot of jerk lawyers will put it that way maybe that's redundant who serve on powerful committees as chairs be that are hearing the legislation and if you don't follow something that the supreme court gives you some sanction on or at least backs up it's going to be much harder to get that passed so we can actually use these strategies from mclean from madison and many others to refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal acts we know as madison told us that if a number of states took this approach it would create an environment in his words where the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter we know today the national governance association in recent years has told us that most federal programs are partnerships with the states most federal programs and guess what partnerships don't work when half the team quit so opting out of federal enforcement not participating is a great way to ensure that they don't exist they can't be enforced the atf which shouldn't exist as well the only constitutional thing that the atf can do is really disband but that's not going to happen but when you get down to it we have a resource they have a resource they're not on our side they should actually have real jobs but the atf the dea and many others the atf specifically has a major resource problem they only have about five to six thousand total employees a third of them are an administration doing paperwork they're probably using typewriters from the 60s if we know how archaic government is but they only have a third of those are in are in administration so somewhere around 3 500 3 000 of these people for the entire country and year in and year out the most cases they can close is about eight to ten thousand per year now that's a lot of people who should not be locked up for owning or possessing a firearm i mean not every one of those is that situation but a lot of them are illegal firearms but if you have 10 or 11 million short barrel shotguns in violation of the national firearms act of 1934 they can't even do it on their own as it is and then if you have the states opt out there's just it's just dead and gone at that point so you actually need sea change in a mentality of how the people approach things and you need states and localities to stop helping the federal government but the anti-commandeering doctrine backs this up and the most famous case or the linchpin of this in modern times is a case known as prince versus united states this is 1997 i've often cited 1842 prig vs pennsylvania 2018 new jersey versus us because the you know it's the original one and most recent but prince versus us is the one that we used to cite most often 1997 and here from an article covering the five main cases that i encourage you to read so you get well versed on this this is by mike mcgarry prince versus u.s 1997 searches serves as the linchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine at issue was a provision in the brady gun bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program sheriff's jay prince up in montana and richard mack in he was in utah at the time maybe arizona sued arguing these maybe one of them was in utah maybe prince was in utah at the time mack was in arizona arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program justice antonin scalia agreed writing in the majority opinion quote it is apparent that the brady act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate albeit only temporarily in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme he said the federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems nor command the state's officers or those of their political subdivisions to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program it matters not whether policy making is involved and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty the federal government does not have the constitutional authority it never did and thankfully luckily the supreme court has gotten this one right the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to acquire states or localities to help them enforce their acts so if they have the national firearms act of 1934 states localities don't help them enforce it they don't have the manpower or the resources to get it done now if the supreme court flips this around and i'm assuming they will at some point in the future we still have to hold to this principle anyway doesn't matter we don't need the supreme court's opinion we don't need their permission but it helps when they get it right now i want to talk about a few things happening i mentioned south and north dakota and i mentioned this bill in south dakota senate bill 129 on monday's episode that i just want to reiterate in light of these views and this is a bill that basically cites a bunch of potential federal gun control or any new one or old ones that would be considered unconstitutional they say this the following list of stuff is unconstitutional null and void in the state of south dakota taxes levies or fees or stamp which is uh registration or tracking anything that forbids the possession ownership or transfer of a firearm ammunition uh and accessories etc this is it's not everything past present future but it's a pretty broad spectrum of federal gun control that could come down the pike but here's what they put in the legislation now we know they already have all kinds of backing to be able to say we're just not going to participate in it so here's what they passed the attorney general this isn't actually passed to the governor yet but it passed out of committee the attorney general oh no actually i'm skipping ahead this one has not passed out of committee yet i'm sorry i'm getting a little confused with my own stuff here let me go through my notes properly here so this is senate bill 129 in south dakota the attorney general on behalf of the residents of this state object to shall object to and litigate against any federal action that violates this section so they're saying all this stuff is considered unconstitutional and the attorney general is required to litigate against it then they say during the pendency of any litigation in accordance with this section no state agency political subdivision or any elected official or employee of this state or political subdivision may attempt to enforce or atta or enforce any action prohibited by this section so they're just saying as long as there's a lawsuit is pending we're going to opt out in other words they're waiting for approval from the federal courts to do what the constitution structure already gives them approval to do which is not enforce the federal gun control laws and what the federal courts have already given them sanctions to do as well so they're asking for permission where they've already gotten permission so this is either a bunch of ignorant legislators who don't know this and they're these are the people who are writing the laws and they don't know this stuff i'm not a lawyer and i know this stuff better than these people do and you know this stuff better than these people do they're writing stuff that either wants to either they're politically grandstanding trying to look tough in protecting the second amendment and it's just garbage it does nothing it just tells them to sue where the attorney general is required rather than has the choice on these particular things on any new federal gun control that may come down the pike after january 1st 2021 and then during that time they're going to opt out but then once it's over what happens well either the supreme court is going to agree and say it's unconstitutional and then they're going to continue to not enforce because the law won't exist anymore really in practice or they're going to lose and then depend the the the case is done and then they have to go back to helping in fact this actually make it makes it worse once that i think about it because if they lose in in court it's in law now that they can only opt out of enforcing these things during the lawsuit afterwards that means someone's going to read it to to mean in law that they have to participate if they lose and this is really really dangerous stuff now that i think about a little bit further than i did on monday so let me get forward to another bill house bill 1164 in north dakota this one was covered pretty widely i had a bunch of people emailing me about this we were first to report on this legislation earlier this year and i know for some reason this made the rounds in conservative media this as it originally introduced the legislation would have revised north dakota code and required the state adjourn attorney general to review any executive orders not affirmed by a congressional vote on the recommendation of legislative management i'm going to make break this down so it's a little bit more easier to comprehend under the original proposal the state its political subdivisions and any publicly funded organization would have been prohibited from implementing any presidential executive order in a bunch of categories that the north dakota attorney general determined to be unconstitutional during review and it sounds confusing because there's a bunch of layers in there that renders it almost worthless even in the original version which i would support because it creates a process to say look at these executive orders in these categories health emergencies regulating natural resources like coal and oil regulating agriculture use of land regulation of financial sector regulation of the right to keep and bear arms stuff like that so looking at that and having the state actually asserting its viewpoint on the constitutionality on that that's a good thing but unfortunately even though that situation was offered to the state legislature it got into the judiciary committee which most bills like this will and those are usually chaired by old good old boy republican party types like this guy state representative lawrence clayman clement i don't know he's the powerful establishment chair of the house judiciary committee in north dakota and last week he offered an amendment to that even though it had a bunch of layers like first it has to go to this review council then if the review council decides they like it then they send it to the attorney general and then if the attorney general thinks it's unconstitutional then the state will opt out of enforcement so even all of those different layers these different uh steps he had to go through he didn't like it he thought this was just a step too far so he changed the legislation he offered an amendment and it was voted yes i think it was like nine to four and there's only it's it's it's dominated by one party in that state pretty close and they approved it and so this is what they're moving forward with notwithstanding any other provision of law a state a political subdivision or any other publicly funded organization may not implement an executive order that restricts a person's rights and has been found unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction so they're basically saying we won't enforce an executive order that a court tells us that we can enforce i mean this is how things already are today they already don't enforce stuff when a court tells them it's unconstitutional and you're not allowed to enforce this unless of course they're trying to tell us something different that they're actually not doing that and they're not enforcing a bunch of stuff that the courts tell them to that would be uh nice to know but i'm assuming this uh lawyer dude clement really is well aware of what he's doing here's how mike maheri put it we quoted him or i quoted him in a report on this neutering of this bill he says the amendment is a pretty sneaky political trick said mike mccary communications director for the 10th amendment center if he wants approval this guy clemen from the courts to end state enforcement of a federal act he's already got that from the supreme court in the anti-commandeering doctrine and as a lawyer he knows it harry hammers at home with this this is just more establishment grandstanding to pretend they're supporting the constitution when passage of this amendment just supports the unconstitutional executive orders of the current administration so they can just pass whatever executive order they want and they're saying this guy's saying we're going to continue enforcing all those we're going to help them enforce even though we aren't required to today and even though there's tons of supreme court precedent telling us that not supporting this stuff is already backed up we don't have to take it to court again it's already been there five times from 1842 to 2018. you don't have to do it he's saying well we just won't participate as long as we get permission from a federal court and this is really just scammy and i want to that brings me to one other piece of legislation in south dakota that i want to cover and hear from a guy named ryan fournier i'm not sure if he uses the kind of french pronunciation here but he tweeted on monday south dakota republicans have introduced a bill that would allow them to nullify biden's executive orders at the state level and i've seen this all over conservative media in the last couple of days i've had tons of people send us messages about this tweets comments etc you gotta learn about house bill 1194 in south dakota it's like the best thing on earth and again this is a very similar bill and almost the same as what was introduced in north dakota and then actually neutered but it's not the best thing on earth it's a decent tiny step if they pass it if this is all they can do if it's not just a political sham i saw it in the daily wire dan bongino show the independent washington examiner in london all over the place and they're all fawning over it and i think it is decent as originally introduced but let's get to what it is house bill 1194 that has really four main steps and i've got them highlighted here on the screen so you can read along if you want i will link to it in the show notes so you can read it in full basically step one there's an executive board of the legislative branch if there is a new executive order that comes from the white house the legislation says the executive board of the legislative branch may review it for constitutionality if it has not been affirmed by a vote of congress so if if the white house is basically trying to legislate from the office there and congress does not back it up with legislation then they're saying well the executive board can review may is not a requirement they don't have to it's just saying it's up to them if they want to do it they can and then if they decide to review it then the executive board may recommend to the attorney general and the governor of the state that the order be further examined by the attorney general to determine the constitutionality of the order and to determine whether the state should seek an exemption from the application or have the order declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority by the president so one the executive board may they aren't required to review it if they do they may tell the governor that it needs to be reviewed further by the attorney general then the attorney general is required to review it and it's up to him or her then to determine if they think it is unconstitutional in their opinion so that's step three then if you get step three where the attorney general says it's unconstitutional then and only then according to this legislation would at that point the state and its political subdivisions stop participating in the enforcement of that executive order again talking about health emergencies natural resources agriculture regulation of land right to keep and bear arms et cetera same list as was in north dakota so it really is step after step after step after step they don't need to have all these reviews to determine if something is constitutional or not in fact we know that james madison specifically in federalist 46 said this strategy can be used on stuff the feds do even if it is constitutional in his words if they are warrantable this is a powerful strategy no one is required to participate in federal and federal enforcement on a state or a local level so they're going through this whole process of maybe this person will look at it and this group of people and maybe they'll decide to and maybe they won't and then if they do then maybe they'll tell these other people to look at and then maybe they'll determine that it's unconstitutional when they could just go right to step four right off the bat and say you know what we're not going to participate in the enforcement of whatever of this and you guys figure out how to do it and maybe that won't bring it to a complete end but it's a big first step that needs to be taken and there is a huge difference and i covered this on monday's show a big difference between how left and right actually take on a refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement and actually help nullify that them in practice the left generally just tells law enforcement or state agencies stop doing this stop participating and on almost every time when a bill pops up that comes from the right that didn't actually come from us first or that they didn't actually water down it generally has a series of layers well we're going to stop enforcing if a court tells us it's okay we can or if a sheriff tells us it's okay that they determine that they're not going to want to or that this council is going to say we shouldn't enforce so there's always this waiting for permission mentality before they opt out and do things that not only they have a right to do a natural right because any time they violate the constitution we shouldn't be like talking about it it's just need to take action nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud oppose a disease at its beginning don't talk about it to talk about it to talk about it to maybe do something about it in one to two years down the line that is the wrong approach and the left is actually winning big when it comes to nullification efforts the wright needs to really catch up on this and they need to catch up fast and of course i covered a lot of those differences on monday's show california versus missouri i hear it's not missouri in a lot of the state like i was saying on monday but one of these days i'll just understand that debate over there at some point california versus missouri top five nullification strategy myths if you haven't checked out that episode google thinks that this is adult content for some reason the video was flagged by then so i know it's not getting a lot of natural organic reach because they're flagging it as a adult content which is absurd so please check that out i will link to it in the show notes so you can check it out at your convenience now keep in mind we also have what's going on with the weed people there are 36 states that have legalized weed cannabis for limited medical purposes in some situations in 15 of those states it's broadly legalized for recreational purposes and if you compare with what they're doing in those states to these types of approaches in south and north dakota i think it's pretty clear that there's a huge difference that needs to be changed and it needs to be changed fast i'm not aware of a single state and i know a lot of you live in these states that has taken steps to legalize cannabis despite the fact that the federal government and the supreme court says they're not authorized to do so i'm not aware of a single state where they passed a bill or a ballot measure that says we're going to create a council and then we're going to have that council and that they are authorized to possibly review if they want the constitutionality of federal marijuana prohibition and then if they think it's unconstitutional then they're going to send it over to the governor if they want to if they think it's a good idea to the governor and the attorney general and then at that point the attorney general can then look at it is required maybe or maybe not and then they'll look at it and say tell us if the attorney general thinks that the federal prohibition on this plant is unconstitutional and then if that happens and and the ag says yeah it's unconstitutional then this ballot measure will go into effect and we'll start legalizing this plan the federal government says that we can't i mean this does not happen for some reason conservatives and the right seem to always want to get more permission and this has to go and i know this is not you guys watching or listening to this but there's a vast majority out there who are always saying we want to be law-abiding gun owners for example no no if you keep following the law sooner or later they're going to never stop passing new laws stop abiding by the stuff that they're not authorized to do and at least use this tool that we have that's widely accepted at least even in the legal world that says we don't have to participate in their enforcement and mike mccary wrote a great article on this said titled dear gun people please learn follow the lead of the weed people and he summed it up like this he says what i'm trying to tell you is follow the lead of the weed people show some guts like the weed people get out there and nullify like the weed people because when it's all said and done that's the only way you're going to stop the erosion of the second amendment the federal government isn't ever going to limit the federal government you have the blueprint now get busy and start building i want to just close it out with a few quotes that i think sum it up pretty well here benjamin franklin put it this way make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you so as long as you take a wimpy approach that we'll wait till later they're going to eat you alive they've been eating people alive for decade after decade after decade and it's time to start having the mentality of the founders and revolutionaries here's abigail adams we have too many high sounding words and too few actions that correspond with them and absolutely correct if you're going to say all this federal stuff is unconstitutional that's high sounding words right like senate bill 129 in south carolina south dakota all this stuff we consider to be unconstitutional and null and void but we're not going to do anything about it unless the federal courts tell us that we can this is just nonsense and then finally james otis jr this really hammers at home in my view there is nothing that will destroy liberty more than a prevailing opinion that is better to tamely submit than nobly assert and vindicate our privileges i know i'm going uh i'm going a little longer than i like to on most days i try to run these episodes around 30 minutes so i have a few minutes to answer some questions i'm running a little long and i got a lot of stuff to do today so i'm gonna look through the live chat and the comments a little bit later today please do continue to leave comments primarily in the archive i get a chance to read through all of them i don't reply to many but they give me tons of great ideas for future episodes and it also triggers the algorithm of the platform to show the program to more people so do likes so do reviews on apple podcasts and any other podcast platform subscription sharing links all that stuff really helps us spread the word and i couldn't be more grateful for that support and of course as i mentioned right at the outset if you want to put your financial faith behind our work please don't feel obligated to do so but if you have a couple of bucks a month that you want to throw our way we will absolutely take it and we do a ton with as little as possible to support the constitution and liberty for as little as two bucks a month over at tenth amendment center dot com slash members i really appreciate you spending some time with me today i hope you enjoyed this episode i hope you learned something i hope you're fired up to stand for liberty whether the i don't know disgusting politician criminals in washington dc want you to or not we got to take this jefferson approach a free people claim their rights as the laws of from the laws of nature and not as a gift from their chief magistrate we're not going to get that gift anyways thanks again for being here i hope you learned something i hope you enjoyed it i really appreciate you spending some time with me today and i'll see you next time here on the path to liberty you