[00:00.000 --> 00:04.800]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:04.800 --> 00:10.200]  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sunday, announced the installation of surveillance cameras,
[00:10.200 --> 00:16.000]  license plate readers and weapon sensors covering landmarks like Grand Central Terminal,
[00:16.000 --> 00:18.700]  the Empire State Building and the UN.
[00:18.700 --> 00:24.800]  Bloomberg is running for re-election November 3rd for a controversial third term.
[00:24.800 --> 00:29.700]  The country's nursing homes are perilously close to laying off workers, cutting services,
[00:29.700 --> 00:34.500]  possibly even closing because of a perfect storm from the recession
[00:34.500 --> 00:38.300]  and deep federal and state government spending cuts.
[00:38.300 --> 00:42.100]  In Scotland, two key figures in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber
[00:42.100 --> 00:45.200]  were secretly given rewards of up to three million dollars
[00:45.200 --> 00:48.800]  in a deal with Scottish detectives and the US government.
[00:48.800 --> 00:54.200]  Details of the payments were revealed in a dossier that was intended to be used in an appeal
[00:54.200 --> 01:01.800]  by Abel Basset El-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.
[01:01.800 --> 01:07.100]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[01:07.100 --> 01:12.200]  Journalists are blasting Barack Obama over his stance on proposed legislation
[01:12.200 --> 01:16.800]  that would protect journalists from having to reveal the identity of their sources.
[01:16.800 --> 01:22.600]  The Society of Professional Journalists expressed outrage Friday over Obama's proposed changes
[01:22.600 --> 01:28.100]  to the SHIELD bill that would protect reporters from having to divulge confidential sources.
[01:28.100 --> 01:30.700]  SPJ President Kevin Smith said,
[01:30.700 --> 01:34.400]  Not long ago, President Obama was a key supporter of this bill,
[01:34.400 --> 01:37.500]  but after one meeting with his national security team,
[01:37.500 --> 01:41.600]  he appears to have been scared into making this poor decision.
[01:41.600 --> 01:45.300]  Adding, it's time for him to stand up and support legislation
[01:45.300 --> 01:49.400]  that gives those people the power to have better oversight of the government.
[01:49.400 --> 01:54.100]  Lawyers for journalists have often cited a 1972 Supreme Court ruling
[01:54.100 --> 01:59.800]  to say they were protected by the First Amendment from having to testify about confidential sources.
[01:59.800 --> 02:08.800]  But in 2003, a federal appeals court judge said that ruling does not protect journalists.
[02:08.800 --> 02:15.000]  The Justice Department has begun to hint in court filings that some of the defendants in the 9-11 case
[02:15.000 --> 02:20.400]  will be transferred from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo to federal custody in the U.S.
[02:20.400 --> 02:26.800]  The Washington Post says little attention has been paid to the conditions detainees would face there.
[02:26.800 --> 02:31.400]  It turns out they would be vastly more draconian than at Guantanamo.
[02:31.400 --> 02:38.600]  They would be sealed off for 23 hours a day in cells with 4-inch wide windows and concrete furniture.
[02:38.600 --> 02:44.200]  If they behave, they are allowed to an hour's exercise each day in a tiny courtyard alone.
[02:44.200 --> 02:47.300]  They will have only contact with prison officials.
[02:47.300 --> 03:14.300]  And the Red Cross, the only group with access to Guantanamo, will no longer have contact.
[03:17.800 --> 03:25.300]  Bad Boy
[03:25.300 --> 03:26.300]  Bad Boy
[03:26.300 --> 03:30.800]  Whatcha gonna do
[03:30.800 --> 03:36.300]  When there is something coming for you
[03:36.300 --> 03:37.800]  Tell me
[03:37.800 --> 03:44.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[03:44.300 --> 03:46.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[03:46.300 --> 03:48.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[03:48.300 --> 03:50.300]  When they come for you
[03:50.300 --> 03:52.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[03:52.300 --> 03:54.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[03:54.300 --> 03:56.300]  When they come for you
[03:56.300 --> 03:58.300]  When you were eight and you had that treat
[03:58.300 --> 04:01.300]  You'd go to school and learn the golden rule
[04:01.300 --> 04:04.300]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool
[04:04.300 --> 04:06.300]  If you get hot then you must get crude
[04:06.300 --> 04:08.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:08.300 --> 04:10.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[04:10.300 --> 04:12.300]  When they come for you
[04:12.300 --> 04:14.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:14.300 --> 04:16.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:16.300 --> 04:18.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[04:18.300 --> 04:20.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[04:20.300 --> 04:22.300]  When they come for you
[04:22.300 --> 04:24.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:24.300 --> 04:26.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:26.300 --> 04:28.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[04:28.300 --> 04:30.300]  When they come for you
[04:30.300 --> 04:32.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:32.300 --> 04:34.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[04:34.300 --> 04:36.300]  Whatcha gonna do
[04:36.300 --> 04:38.300]  When they come for you
[04:38.300 --> 04:40.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:40.300 --> 04:42.300]  Bad Boy, Bad Boy
[04:42.300 --> 05:09.500]  All right, you are listening to The Rule of Law here on RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[05:09.500 --> 05:18.180]  I'm Deborah Stevens and we're here with Randy Kelton, of course, and Eddie Craig, our co-host.
[05:18.180 --> 05:25.340]  And tonight we have a very special guest for you guys and gals out there, Mr. Gary Creep,
[05:25.340 --> 05:27.300]  Attorney Gary Creep.
[05:27.300 --> 05:35.860]  He is the founder of the U.S. Justice Foundation and he is working pro bono on a case right
[05:35.860 --> 05:43.580]  now concerning the eligibility or lack thereof of Obama to be president.
[05:43.580 --> 05:46.020]  Gary, thanks for joining us tonight.
[05:46.020 --> 05:49.100]  Thank you for having me on your show.
[05:49.100 --> 05:56.260]  So Gary, give us a little background on your organization and your website and what led
[05:56.260 --> 06:03.780]  you, what motivated you to found this organization and then give us some information and background
[06:03.780 --> 06:05.300]  on this case.
[06:05.300 --> 06:10.780]  There was a hearing today but let's lead up to present, give us some background and start
[06:10.780 --> 06:12.660]  off with your organization, please.
[06:12.660 --> 06:13.660]  Certainly.
[06:13.660 --> 06:16.260]  The organization is United States Justice Foundation.
[06:16.260 --> 06:21.580]  I and two other conservative attorneys founded it back in 1979 basically because we were
[06:21.580 --> 06:27.780]  sick and tired of the left basically running the show in the legal system.
[06:27.780 --> 06:35.900]  Every time a law would be passed, let's say, restricting welfare to a reasonable level.
[06:35.900 --> 06:43.500]  Let's come in with a lawsuit, batter the government into submission or keep filing lawsuits and
[06:43.500 --> 06:44.980]  governments would give up.
[06:44.980 --> 06:45.980]  There was no one on their side.
[06:45.980 --> 06:49.660]  They didn't want to send taxpayer money to fight what they saw as losing battles because
[06:49.660 --> 06:51.980]  all the legal activity was on the left.
[06:51.980 --> 06:56.020]  So I and these other attorneys, we founded the United States Justice Foundation.
[06:56.020 --> 06:59.740]  This was back in 1979 and we decided we're going to start taking on the left.
[06:59.740 --> 07:04.660]  That's what we've been doing ever since in our 30 plus year history.
[07:04.660 --> 07:06.540]  That's awesome.
[07:06.540 --> 07:07.540]  I love it.
[07:07.540 --> 07:16.420]  So have you done, have you guys filed lawsuits against some of these leftist organizations?
[07:16.420 --> 07:22.780]  We've been involved in some of the most important lawsuits in the country.
[07:22.780 --> 07:25.540]  Now you have to understand, we're not a big organization.
[07:25.540 --> 07:29.780]  We don't, you know, there's a group called Judicial Watch, which is very well known and
[07:29.780 --> 07:34.540]  they've got, I know Larry Kleinman and when he was running the show, they had like three
[07:34.540 --> 07:37.700]  full-time PR guys and all that.
[07:37.700 --> 07:40.460]  They were able to generate tremendous amounts of listening.
[07:40.460 --> 07:42.060]  We're kind of the guys behind the scenes.
[07:42.060 --> 07:44.740]  We're the ones working that you never hear about.
[07:44.740 --> 07:48.740]  But for instance, if you're, if you know anything about, if you're involved with all this old
[07:48.740 --> 07:53.180]  schooling, you may have heard of the case called In Ray Rachel L. out in California,
[07:53.180 --> 07:59.100]  which was a very terrible decision that was issued in February of 2008, essentially making
[07:59.100 --> 08:05.620]  homeschooling without a certified teacher in the family, a criminal act in California.
[08:05.620 --> 08:09.740]  And after that bad decision came down, I was contacted by the family and the United States
[08:09.740 --> 08:14.100]  Justice Foundation working with Homeschooling Defense Association and with the Alliance
[08:14.100 --> 08:18.020]  Defense Fund, we managed to overturn that decision.
[08:18.020 --> 08:21.780]  I served as the lead appellate counsel and I served as the trial counsel.
[08:21.780 --> 08:27.220]  And with God's blessing, we've turned that around so that it is now the right, the court
[08:27.220 --> 08:30.340]  declared right of all parents in California to homeschool.
[08:30.340 --> 08:33.980]  That's one example of the cases that we've handled.
[08:33.980 --> 08:34.980]  That is so awesome.
[08:34.980 --> 08:43.540]  And so he says, oh well, who are you, why did, but all you got to do is look at the,
[08:43.540 --> 08:47.420]  the decision by the appellate court, you'll see my name as the lead appellate attorney
[08:47.420 --> 08:48.420]  for the father.
[08:48.420 --> 08:52.700]  I mean, so it's not me saying it, it's there in black and white.
[08:52.700 --> 09:01.060]  And you can even go on our website, www.usjf.net, www.usjf.net and see, we've been involved
[09:01.060 --> 09:04.140]  in sending pro-life picketers for most of our 30 years.
[09:04.140 --> 09:09.300]  For the last number of years, I've served as the general counsel to face some proxies
[09:09.300 --> 09:11.300]  and then civil defense courts.
[09:11.300 --> 09:15.820]  And I've represented a number of, I know the USJF attorneys have represented a number
[09:15.820 --> 09:23.060]  of men and men protesters against illegal immigration and civil and criminal cases around
[09:23.060 --> 09:24.060]  the country.
[09:24.060 --> 09:28.660]  And I'm proud to say that we're, that we've won every civil case and we've won every criminal
[09:28.660 --> 09:29.660]  case.
[09:29.660 --> 09:30.660]  So we've had it in California.
[09:30.660 --> 09:34.820]  We also won the only case that we handled in Iowa and we had a split decision in Arizona.
[09:34.820 --> 09:38.340]  We won one case in Los Angeles, but you know, I guess we can't win a month.
[09:38.340 --> 09:43.860]  But we've been there fighting the good fight for people in the courtroom that can't afford
[09:43.860 --> 09:44.860]  it otherwise.
[09:44.860 --> 09:50.940]  What the left depends on, excuse me, and what the government depends on is they'll prosecute
[09:50.940 --> 09:55.580]  somebody on bogus charges or they'll create a civil suit against somebody on bogus charges
[09:55.580 --> 09:58.740]  just to try to beat them down because the people are afraid they're going to have a
[09:58.740 --> 09:59.740]  judgment against them.
[09:59.740 --> 10:01.540]  They're going to go to jail.
[10:01.540 --> 10:02.540]  They're put in fear.
[10:02.540 --> 10:08.420]  So we stand in the breach to protect those people when they exercise the freedom of rights
[10:08.420 --> 10:10.460]  against abortion or against illegal immigration.
[10:10.460 --> 10:15.980]  And we've been doing that for essentially our entire 30-plus year history.
[10:15.980 --> 10:18.060]  That's awesome.
[10:18.060 --> 10:21.300]  That's quite a track record there, Gary.
[10:21.300 --> 10:27.540]  So give us some background on this case that you're working on, you know, whatever you
[10:27.540 --> 10:31.420]  feel is appropriate without violating any, you know, client-
[10:31.420 --> 10:32.420]  Attorney-client privileges.
[10:32.420 --> 10:34.540]  Yeah, attorney-client privileges, exactly.
[10:34.540 --> 10:40.060]  So tell us what's going on with the case and what are the merits and what's going on here?
[10:40.060 --> 10:42.700]  There's been two cases going on.
[10:42.700 --> 10:48.220]  One was brought in November of 2008 to try to block the casting of electoral college
[10:48.220 --> 10:54.340]  votes in California for Mr. Obama on the grounds that he had not provided any evidence that
[10:54.340 --> 10:56.460]  he was eligible to serve as president.
[10:56.460 --> 11:03.300]  Now, that lawsuit was part of a nationwide strategy, and my foundation handled the California
[11:03.300 --> 11:12.060]  litigation, but we also funded related litigation in Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi.
[11:12.060 --> 11:18.820]  And unfortunately, because there's some tactics on the, or some actions, I shouldn't say
[11:18.820 --> 11:22.940]  tactics, but actions by the judge, we never got a hearing on the merits of that case before
[11:22.940 --> 11:28.980]  the electoral college was held, you know, the votes were passed by the electoral college.
[11:28.980 --> 11:35.060]  The inauguration, the judge purposely set the hearing off until March of 2009.
[11:35.060 --> 11:42.620]  So because of the judge's actions, we amended the complaint to seek to bar any future candidate
[11:42.620 --> 11:46.980]  for president for appearing on the California presidential ballot unless and until he or
[11:46.980 --> 11:50.580]  she provides proof that they are eligible to serve as president.
[11:50.580 --> 11:55.100]  And so if our lawsuit is successful, and we're the Indian Tele-Sports System now in California,
[11:55.100 --> 11:59.100]  then we believe we have a very good chance, because we based this on California law.
[11:59.100 --> 12:03.740]  We didn't go out on some, it wasn't just some, oh, golly gee, he's not eligible so far.
[12:03.740 --> 12:08.740]  We said, no, he is just an example of a song that says we're asking the court to enforce
[12:08.740 --> 12:13.860]  California law and make sure that this never happens again, that someone can conceal whether
[12:13.860 --> 12:18.220]  they're eligible to serve as president and just blow through it without having anyone
[12:18.220 --> 12:21.940]  really take a good look at what they're doing and who they are.
[12:21.940 --> 12:26.260]  So we've got that case, my clients in that case, and I'm the sole attorney on the federal
[12:26.260 --> 12:33.340]  level in that case, are Dr. Alan Keyes, Mr. Wiley Drake, Pastor Wiley Drake, excuse me,
[12:33.340 --> 12:35.780]  and Mr. Mark Robinson.
[12:35.780 --> 12:40.660]  Alan and Wiley were the presidential and vice presidential candidates for the American Independent
[12:40.660 --> 12:45.980]  Party ticket in California in 2008, and Mark Robinson is the current state chairman of
[12:45.980 --> 12:51.100]  the American Independent Party this year, 2009.
[12:51.100 --> 12:57.740]  So after, while that case was going on, the original co-counsel with me in that case decided
[12:57.740 --> 13:02.900]  that they did not like the decisions that the clients were making, that the attorney
[13:02.900 --> 13:06.140]  demanded that certain legal theory be adopted.
[13:06.140 --> 13:11.700]  The clients rejected that legal theory, so the other attorney basically picked up the
[13:11.700 --> 13:15.700]  attorney's toys and went home and started filing a series of lawsuits.
[13:15.700 --> 13:21.420]  Now, one of them was this lawsuit that I'm involved with now in federal California that
[13:21.420 --> 13:23.220]  we had a hearing about today.
[13:23.220 --> 13:31.780]  Now, that case was filed in January 2009, and, you know, we need to litigate this issue,
[13:31.780 --> 13:32.780]  so I'm all for that.
[13:32.780 --> 13:39.380]  The problem is that when the lawsuit was filed, the attorney never told the attorney's supposed
[13:39.380 --> 13:44.180]  client that the lawsuit was filed, which is really kind of bizarre to think about it.
[13:44.180 --> 13:47.980]  I don't think you'd want a lawsuit being filed on your behalf without you even knowing
[13:47.980 --> 13:50.740]  you're suing somebody for a whole variety of reasons.
[13:50.740 --> 13:54.340]  If you use the lawsuit, there could be attorney fees, there could be sanctions, and a lot
[13:54.340 --> 13:59.260]  of bad things that come about if you just file a lawsuit and you don't know that you're
[13:59.260 --> 14:00.260]  involved in the lawsuit.
[14:00.260 --> 14:05.220]  Anyway, the attorney filed the lawsuit, and I was the one that actually informed my clients,
[14:05.220 --> 14:09.580]  who were the same clients, same types of lawsuits, about this new federal lawsuit.
[14:09.580 --> 14:11.580]  They knew nothing about it.
[14:11.580 --> 14:16.220]  For a variety of reasons, and I'm not going to test them throughout, it was decided that
[14:16.220 --> 14:20.580]  no action would be taken against that attorney at that time, and the attorney would be allowed
[14:20.580 --> 14:21.580]  to handle the case.
[14:21.580 --> 14:24.580]  So the case went forward.
[14:24.580 --> 14:29.900]  Unfortunately, I shouldn't say unfortunately, in any lawsuit, if anyone who's ever been involved
[14:29.900 --> 14:31.900]  in a lawsuit knows, you have to serve the lawsuit.
[14:31.900 --> 14:36.140]  You can't just file a lawsuit and just hold it and say, all right, I've got a lawsuit.
[14:36.140 --> 14:40.100]  Well, for the attorney's own reasons, that attorney did not serve the lawsuit for seven
[14:40.100 --> 14:41.100]  months.
[14:41.100 --> 14:46.820]  And it came up three times for dismissal by the federal court because you just can't sit
[14:46.820 --> 14:49.500]  on a lawsuit and just do nothing.
[14:49.500 --> 14:55.180]  So ultimately, on the third shot, the lawsuit was served.
[14:55.180 --> 14:58.940]  But in the meantime, because of that pair of discernment and some other things that
[14:58.940 --> 15:03.940]  had gone on in the lawsuit, I was approached by two of the plaintiffs, Dr. Drake and Mark
[15:03.940 --> 15:06.300]  Robinson, who represented in the case.
[15:06.300 --> 15:08.060]  So we did the appropriate thing.
[15:08.060 --> 15:15.700]  We submitted paperwork to the original attorney on the case, subbing that attorney out, subbing
[15:15.700 --> 15:20.580]  me in on behalf of the client, by that time, or about 40 clients, so that attorney would
[15:20.580 --> 15:23.300]  still be representing the vast majority of the clients.
[15:23.300 --> 15:30.180]  Under California law and under federal law, the client has an absolute right to the attorney
[15:30.180 --> 15:31.460]  of their choice.
[15:31.460 --> 15:34.180]  You can't force someone to allow you to represent them.
[15:34.180 --> 15:39.780]  You can't refuse to withdraw from a case just because you don't want to.
[15:39.780 --> 15:44.540]  But this attorney, for the attorney's own reasons, not only did not, but not find a
[15:44.540 --> 15:49.500]  substitutional attorney, the attorney filed a pleading with the court, dismissing my two
[15:49.500 --> 15:54.020]  clients, telling the court that the client that pulled that attorney wanted to be dismissed.
[15:54.020 --> 15:56.740]  Now, this is complete and utter falseness.
[15:56.740 --> 16:01.620]  So because the attorney refused to follow a formal procedure, refused to comply with
[16:01.620 --> 16:07.220]  a standard court policy, we were forced to file a motion to bring the client back into
[16:07.220 --> 16:09.020]  the case, which is what we did.
[16:09.020 --> 16:15.620]  Now, on September 8th, the judge granted the motion and ordered my clients back into the
[16:15.620 --> 16:20.300]  case, to be his representative, and admonished the attorney that the attorney had no right
[16:20.300 --> 16:22.340]  to do with the attorney.
[16:22.340 --> 16:23.740]  So the case has been going forward.
[16:23.740 --> 16:28.340]  At the same time, the Department of Justice filed a motion saying that the court has no
[16:28.340 --> 16:30.740]  right to hear this case, no jurisdiction.
[16:30.740 --> 16:33.140]  All right, hold on, Gary.
[16:33.140 --> 16:34.140]  We're going to break.
[16:34.140 --> 16:35.140]  Yeah.
[16:35.140 --> 16:40.500]  This was the kicker for me when you were talking to Gary Johnson the other night, is that the
[16:40.500 --> 16:46.820]  Justice Department files a motion saying the court doesn't have a right or authority to
[16:46.820 --> 16:47.820]  hear the case.
[16:47.820 --> 16:50.620]  That just blew me away.
[16:50.620 --> 16:52.900]  We'll be right back, listeners.
[16:52.900 --> 16:53.980]  This is the rule of law.
[16:53.980 --> 17:00.980]  We're speaking with attorney Gary Creep.
[17:23.980 --> 17:29.240]  It has been eight years since the attacks, and there are hundreds of unanswered questions.
[17:29.240 --> 17:33.700]  Come down to Brave New Books on Wednesday, October 7th at 7 p.m. for the premiere of
[17:33.700 --> 17:37.620]  The New Loose Change called Loose Change and American Coup.
[17:37.620 --> 17:39.220]  This is a powerful film.
[17:39.220 --> 17:42.240]  If you think you've seen it all before, you haven't.
[17:42.240 --> 17:45.940]  And American Coup is the quintessential 9-11 truth film to date.
[17:45.940 --> 17:50.780]  The screening starts at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, October 7th, at Brave New Books at 1904 Guadalupe.
[17:50.780 --> 17:57.780]  loop. For any questions please call 512-480-2503 or visit us on the web at Brave New Bookstore
[18:20.780 --> 18:33.300]  All right, we are back. We are speaking with a very special guest, attorney Gary Creep,
[18:33.300 --> 18:45.220]  who is working pro bono on a case involving the illegitimacy of Obama to qualify for president.
[18:45.220 --> 18:50.940]  He doesn't qualify for president, so this is astonishing. The Justice Department files
[18:50.940 --> 18:57.900]  a motion in the case saying that the court doesn't have any right or any authority to
[18:57.900 --> 19:03.580]  hear the case. That's correct. All right, and hold on one moment Gary, and listeners
[19:03.580 --> 19:08.980]  please forgive us for Gary's connection. He's traveling right now and he's driving in the
[19:08.980 --> 19:15.140]  car and so he has to use Bluetooth and the connection may be a little erratic, so please
[19:15.140 --> 19:19.020]  bear with us here because this is very important information. Please go ahead Gary.
[19:19.020 --> 19:25.140]  Certainly. So the Department of Justice filed their motion claiming that the court has no
[19:25.140 --> 19:29.140]  right to hear this case, which you know it's always kind of ballsy when you, excuse my
[19:29.140 --> 19:32.500]  language, but that kind of hurts you that way. It's always kind of ballsy when you tell
[19:32.500 --> 19:36.700]  a judge that they can't hear a case. They've got no power, you know, stick it in your ear
[19:36.700 --> 19:41.820]  and all that. And so, but the Department of Justice is the Department of Justice. You
[19:41.820 --> 19:46.620]  know, I've faced government attorneys for decades as I've been doing this. I've been
[19:46.620 --> 19:53.180]  an attorney since 1975. It'll be 34 years in December and the vast majority of my legal
[19:53.180 --> 19:57.460]  career I've been facing government attorneys or government funded attorneys provided left
[19:57.460 --> 20:02.380]  wing groups. So anyway, they filed a motion saying court, sorry you've got no power. Their
[20:02.380 --> 20:10.540]  argument is that only Congress or the Electoral College has the right to determine the eligibility
[20:10.540 --> 20:15.460]  of Mr. Obama or for that matter anyone to serve as personal. And they just kind of made
[20:15.460 --> 20:22.780]  it up and said, and we based it on some writings of the founding fathers about the Electoral
[20:22.780 --> 20:32.340]  College in original reason for it and they based it upon some laws that talk about how
[20:32.340 --> 20:39.740]  the Congress certifies, ratifies the voted Electoral College. The problem is that the
[20:39.740 --> 20:46.500]  laws of the authority that they cited have nothing to do with reality. And I'm not trying
[20:46.500 --> 20:50.660]  to be disrespectful to the attorney and for the Department of Justice. They're doing their
[20:50.660 --> 20:57.220]  job. But let's look at the Electoral College. One of the original reasons for the Electoral
[20:57.220 --> 21:01.660]  College was that our founding fathers were concerned that people in rural areas would
[21:01.660 --> 21:06.180]  somehow get fooled or they wouldn't have any real information about a candidate or they'd
[21:06.180 --> 21:11.580]  wind up voting for people on reasons other than who was best for the country or who was
[21:11.580 --> 21:16.340]  the best person or who was a good person. And so they gave the Electoral College kind
[21:16.340 --> 21:22.740]  of an overview to make sure that everything was done according to Hoyl, as they say. Well,
[21:22.740 --> 21:27.940]  the reality though is that these days that's no longer the case. 26 states in the District
[21:27.940 --> 21:33.700]  of Columbia all have statutes which require electors in the Electoral College to vote
[21:33.700 --> 21:39.540]  for the candidates that have paid the most vote in their state or those electors are
[21:39.540 --> 21:44.020]  subject to criminal or civil penalties. That's just the reality of life. We no longer have
[21:44.020 --> 21:50.420]  these informed kind of people over us watching out for us in the Electoral College making
[21:50.420 --> 21:56.980]  sure that everything is being done right. No, we've got people that by law vote a certain
[21:56.980 --> 22:04.940]  way. So that argument that they cited is meaningless in today's reality. And it's also meaningless
[22:04.940 --> 22:11.540]  when you talk about one man, one vote and all that. We do not have an elite office.
[22:11.540 --> 22:15.260]  We don't have a group of, you know, super rich people up there that decide, you know,
[22:15.260 --> 22:18.260]  who's going to be first enough. We get to vote on it. We're representative of the
[22:18.260 --> 22:22.820]  federal government. The other argument that they made was that, well, Congress has the
[22:22.820 --> 22:28.740]  right to object at the reading and certify of the vote in the Electoral College. And
[22:28.740 --> 22:35.460]  that sounds awfully nice, but not if you read what the laws actually say. That review is
[22:35.460 --> 22:40.860]  restricted to making sure that the people work is filled out right and submitted properly.
[22:40.860 --> 22:46.820]  There is no provision in any law for Congress to ascertain through its involvement with
[22:46.820 --> 22:52.340]  the Electoral College, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, whether anyone
[22:52.340 --> 22:59.460]  is eligible for the president. And in fact, as I argued today, when the vice president
[22:59.460 --> 23:05.300]  was called to certify the results, announce the results, he is required to open up the
[23:05.300 --> 23:11.900]  possibility of a count. That didn't happen this time. Mr. Cheney, former Vice President
[23:11.900 --> 23:18.420]  Cheney, did not make the protocol required comment about whether there are inquiries,
[23:18.420 --> 23:23.260]  whether there are any challenges or not. It's on YouTube. You can find it on yourself. I
[23:23.260 --> 23:29.820]  don't have the exact, you know, the base page or whatever it is. I'm kind of techno illiterate,
[23:29.820 --> 23:37.140]  so yes, forgive me. But you can't, our people have looked at the recording of the certifications
[23:37.140 --> 23:42.140]  and he did not ask the question whether to make any inquiries, whether there were challenges.
[23:42.140 --> 23:46.660]  Now, I'm not saying anyone would have had to get to the count. Most of our politicians
[23:46.660 --> 23:50.460]  at the practice center are definitely trying to wonder. There's a great few that want
[23:50.460 --> 23:56.580]  to stand up for what it's like. Most of them just want to duck and cover and minimize any
[23:56.580 --> 24:02.620]  opposition when they want to run for re-election. But that did not happen. In fact, the judge
[24:02.620 --> 24:07.620]  and I, during my argument, got into a very interesting series of discussions about history
[24:07.620 --> 24:12.860]  and we'll lose the party and things like that. But I'm a student of history, so it's kind
[24:12.860 --> 24:20.860]  of fascinating to me. But anyway, so the arguments raised by Department of Justice fell flat.
[24:20.860 --> 24:26.620]  Now, unfortunately, what's going on is that I and the staff at the NSH Justice Foundation
[24:26.620 --> 24:31.780]  represent two of the parties and another attorney represents 42 parties. And when the Department
[24:31.780 --> 24:40.060]  of Justice argued that only Congress and Electoral College had the right to comment eligibility,
[24:40.060 --> 24:45.500]  the other attorney conceded, said, yeah, you're right. Well, that just gutted her whole, that
[24:45.500 --> 24:50.980]  just gutted that attorney's whole argument. And we don't know how much you've gutted ours,
[24:50.980 --> 24:54.860]  depending on what the judge says, but he has said that we can argue separately. So we argued
[24:54.860 --> 25:00.380]  vehemently on that point because to give up on that point essentially conceded the argument
[25:00.380 --> 25:05.460]  and there's the ballgame. So we definitely fought on that issue and we had the correct
[25:05.460 --> 25:14.340]  one and we think the judge was able to see that today during the oral argument. But that
[25:14.340 --> 25:19.900]  was the main argument that was the main part of the battle. The interesting thing is that
[25:19.900 --> 25:25.780]  the judge was not happy with anybody as far as the attorney. He made the comment several
[25:25.780 --> 25:31.380]  times that he wanted briefings on other issues that nobody agreed. Now, you have to understand
[25:31.380 --> 25:35.180]  that when the farm disrespected their motion, it's not up to me to say, hey, why didn't
[25:35.180 --> 25:39.740]  you argue another argument? It's not my job, not my place, and I'm sure as heck not going
[25:39.740 --> 25:45.980]  to do it. So we just responded to the argument in the Department of Justice. Now, if I had
[25:45.980 --> 25:50.100]  been in the Department of Justice and was representing Mr. Obama at all, would I have
[25:50.100 --> 25:54.460]  argued differently? Probably yes, it's because of my knowledge in this area. And I'm not
[25:54.460 --> 25:59.300]  criticizing them. They did their job. But I would have thrown in a lot more arguments
[25:59.300 --> 26:04.740]  that I think might have carried more weight than the ones that they did because even though
[26:04.740 --> 26:09.740]  the other attorney conceded those points, we found good legal arguments to blow those
[26:09.740 --> 26:10.740]  arguments up.
[26:10.740 --> 26:22.160]  Now, Gary, didn't you also discuss on Gary Johnson's show the other night that the Department
[26:22.160 --> 26:28.820]  of Justice basically said that they did not believe that certain cases existed that you
[26:28.820 --> 26:36.100]  cited in as far as backing up your arguments, like you're going to actually fabricate a
[26:36.100 --> 26:40.780]  court case? I mean, come on. Can you tell us about this?
[26:40.780 --> 26:45.060]  Certainly. That actually happened in our state case. What happened was that Mr. Obama's private
[26:45.060 --> 26:50.860]  attorney, there's a very famous case in California law, but it's very hard to find. I mean, it's
[26:50.860 --> 26:55.580]  a 40-some year old case. I don't know how many of you remember Eldridge Cleaver. Eldridge
[26:55.580 --> 27:01.860]  Cleaver was a black pastor. He was a violent revolutionary who ultimately accepted Jesus
[27:01.860 --> 27:09.300]  Christ as his Lord and Savior and became a pastor. And he ran for president in 1968 on
[27:09.300 --> 27:14.740]  the Peace and Freedom Party ticket. Only problem, he didn't qualify. Now, in his case, it had
[27:14.740 --> 27:19.300]  nothing to do with where he was born. It had to do with he was too young because he was
[27:19.300 --> 27:23.700]  not 35 years old. He's only 34 years old. So in the litigation that went all the way
[27:23.700 --> 27:28.580]  to the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Cleaver challenged that and lost.
[27:28.580 --> 27:34.380]  So obviously, since that is another Article II issue, 14 years resident, natural born
[27:34.380 --> 27:39.580]  citizen, 35 years of age, those are the three requirements in Article II, the service president.
[27:39.580 --> 27:45.300]  We raised the issue that these issues had already been litigated because the attorneys
[27:45.300 --> 27:50.020]  for Mr. Obama claimed that they had never been litigated. So we raised the issue, at
[27:50.020 --> 27:55.380]  least in California, Article II issues had been litigated, and our side had won. And
[27:55.380 --> 27:58.300]  they claimed that the case never existed, which is kind of interesting. They actually
[27:58.300 --> 28:02.540]  got up and said that. Now, the funny thing is that the secretary of state's office, who
[28:02.540 --> 28:07.300]  was also, we were sending the California secretary of state over their failure to confirm that
[28:07.300 --> 28:11.820]  Mr. Obama was eligible, they shut up. They didn't say a word. They didn't say the case
[28:11.820 --> 28:16.220]  didn't exist. They didn't say it did. And actually, during the oral argument on the
[28:16.220 --> 28:20.420]  trial level of the California case, walked over, put my hand on the secretary of state's
[28:20.420 --> 28:24.220]  attorney's shoulder and said, this man knows that the case exists. And that man didn't
[28:24.220 --> 28:30.540]  say a word. But anyway, we found the case on our appeal in our public brief. We'll be
[28:30.540 --> 28:35.940]  citing the case because it does exist. But unfortunately, that's the extreme that some
[28:35.940 --> 28:43.260]  of these people will go. The Obama attorneys, and I know the attorneys personally, I mean
[28:43.260 --> 28:48.540]  not as friends or anything, but the attorneys that we're facing in the California case,
[28:48.540 --> 28:52.580]  California state case, I've faced before on other issues. They do a lot of work for government
[28:52.580 --> 28:58.180]  entities. And they're not just out there to win. They're out there because they want
[28:58.180 --> 29:02.340]  to top down the opposition. They want people to understand that you can't challenge Mr.
[29:02.340 --> 29:09.340]  Obama. And you go up with a last name like mine. You go up becoming an attorney. I don't
[29:09.340 --> 29:15.500]  intimidate well. I never have. I've gotten all sorts of obscene emails over this case.
[29:15.500 --> 29:22.620]  I've got threats from people over this case. And my response is, bring it on. I'm sorry.
[29:22.620 --> 29:27.620]  I guess I'm just too stubborn and too obnoxious and too whatever to allow these people to
[29:27.620 --> 29:30.060]  intimidate me out of doing what I think is right.
[29:30.060 --> 29:31.060]  Well-
[29:31.060 --> 29:33.140]  Personally, I like obnoxious.
[29:33.140 --> 29:39.020]  I love it. I absolutely love it. And you know what? It just shows these people don't have
[29:39.020 --> 29:45.420]  a leg to stand on if they're saying things like, we don't believe this case exists. I
[29:45.420 --> 29:47.460]  mean, that is just pathetic.
[29:47.460 --> 29:48.460]  All right.
[29:48.460 --> 29:53.780]  That's one of the reasons why I think we're going to be successful in our California case.
[29:53.780 --> 29:54.780]  Because that-
[29:54.780 --> 30:02.660]  Hold on. Hold on. Hold that thought, Gary. We're going to break. We'll be right back.
[30:02.660 --> 30:08.780]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary.
[30:08.780 --> 30:17.100]  The affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[30:17.100 --> 30:22.380]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[30:22.380 --> 30:27.740]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and
[30:27.740 --> 30:34.540]  now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[30:34.540 --> 30:40.500]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[30:40.500 --> 30:46.020]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[30:46.020 --> 30:53.020]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[30:53.020 --> 31:06.020]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[31:06.020 --> 31:25.020]  I got a warrant, and I'm going to solve them. To the head of government, prosecute them.
[31:25.020 --> 31:35.020]  Okay. All right, Susan's a rat.
[31:35.020 --> 31:43.020]  Sounds like there's some prosecutions in order involving this case as well. So, Gary,
[31:43.020 --> 31:50.020]  can you please tell us why you got involved in this case to begin with?
[31:50.020 --> 31:56.020]  Last year, I was approached by people who wanted to challenge the eligibility of whether
[31:56.020 --> 32:01.020]  Mr. McCain could serve as President of the United States, because there are significant
[32:01.020 --> 32:05.020]  questions about him too. And I mean, no disrespect to Mr. McCain. I think he's a true American
[32:05.020 --> 32:11.020]  hero. He wasn't my candidate for President. But, you know, to me, the Constitution is
[32:11.020 --> 32:16.020]  the Constitution. You know, there's not a past for Republicans or Democrats or conservatives
[32:16.020 --> 32:21.020]  or liberals. We all have to live in the Constitution. But the issue, when it was presented to me,
[32:21.020 --> 32:26.020]  I declined to get involved with, and very basic reason. Until there's actually an election,
[32:26.020 --> 32:32.020]  any challenge is what's called premature. You know, you can say, well, what if he wins?
[32:32.020 --> 32:33.020]  He won't be eligible.
[32:33.020 --> 32:37.020]  Well, okay. And a lot of times, the court's going to say, well, yes, but the election
[32:37.020 --> 32:42.020]  has been held. We don't know. It's all premature. After the election, then you bring your losses.
[32:42.020 --> 32:48.020]  So I decided that I would not get involved at that time. And then, obviously, Mr. Obama
[32:48.020 --> 32:52.020]  won, so there was no challenge to whether Mr. McCain was eligible to serve as President
[32:52.020 --> 32:58.020]  of the United States. There was a challenge. And initially, I was very involved in other
[32:58.020 --> 33:02.020]  cases, so I wasn't going to do anything, you know, get involved, even though I'd been
[33:02.020 --> 33:07.020]  approached. But I was persuaded by some friends of mine that basically it was something that
[33:07.020 --> 33:13.020]  needed to be done, that the American citizen's degree had a right to know whether they had
[33:13.020 --> 33:18.020]  a legitimate President. And then, as time started going by, I started the same thing
[33:18.020 --> 33:23.020]  that, to be quite honest, scared the you-know-what out of me. Now, I'm 59 years old. I've been
[33:23.020 --> 33:29.020]  active in politics since the Goldwater campaign in 64. And I can tell you that this is the
[33:29.020 --> 33:37.020]  first and, you know, we obviously all lived through Mr. Clinton and his sexual gymnastics
[33:37.020 --> 33:44.020]  and perjury, and we lived through, you know, both Bush administrations. And I'm, with all
[33:44.020 --> 33:49.020]  due respect to both President Bushes, I'm sure, are honorable men. I wasn't a big fan.
[33:49.020 --> 33:54.020]  The last President I really liked was Ronald Reagan. But, you know, we had all these things
[33:54.020 --> 33:59.020]  going on, and I saw things wrong, and I spoke out. I spoke out against Bush II on things.
[33:59.020 --> 34:05.020]  I spoke out against Mr. Clinton on things. And basically, I didn't see how I could justify
[34:05.020 --> 34:10.020]  if I'd spoken out against eight years of things I saw wrong in the Bush administration, how
[34:10.020 --> 34:14.020]  I could not speak out against things I saw going on in the Obama administration. And
[34:14.020 --> 34:18.020]  some of the things I saw just scared the you-know-what out of me, really did. I saw real, what I
[34:18.020 --> 34:25.020]  saw were real threats to the Constitution. And I saw real threats to the country as a
[34:25.020 --> 34:33.020]  whole. So I did some research. I was approached by another attorney. The attorney that came
[34:33.020 --> 34:38.020]  to me and wanted to file a lawsuit brought me a document that wasn't fileable. It was
[34:38.020 --> 34:44.020]  a brand-new attorney, a recent attorney that had never even filed a lawsuit, and it wasn't
[34:44.020 --> 34:53.020]  going to happen. So basically, I agreed to become involved. I put my staff to work. We
[34:53.020 --> 35:00.020]  put together a comprehensive plan, a legal carry, and we went forth. And as I said, we
[35:00.020 --> 35:05.020]  are the first lawsuit that we filed as part of a nationwide strategy with other attorneys
[35:05.020 --> 35:12.020]  across the country to challenge the electoral college vote in California through some machinations.
[35:12.020 --> 35:18.020]  While I know the judge that heard the case and I respect him because I've won cases
[35:18.020 --> 35:25.020]  before, I think that he kind of ducked and dodged and was hoping the thing would go away,
[35:25.020 --> 35:27.020]  as so many judges have in this case.
[35:27.020 --> 35:33.020]  You have to understand, this case can be a career killer. I mean, any judge... I mean,
[35:33.020 --> 35:39.020]  think about a state court judge that's elected. Do you really think that they're going to
[35:39.020 --> 35:46.020]  want to rule against Mr. Obama on any of this stuff? I mean, they're looking at $750 million
[35:46.020 --> 35:54.020]  worth of internet campaign, finance fraud, or whatever the amount is that he raised illegally
[35:54.020 --> 35:59.020]  being brought down. I mean, these people have targets on them. A federal judge, obviously,
[35:59.020 --> 36:03.020]  is a lifetime appointee, but a lot of federal judges want to go up. They want to go into
[36:03.020 --> 36:10.020]  certain courts of appeal. And as a practical matter, many of the appellate court judges
[36:10.020 --> 36:14.020]  or even the federal court judges, they're political people. They got their jobs because
[36:14.020 --> 36:19.020]  of political connections, just like a lot of state court judges do. So, you know, it's
[36:19.020 --> 36:25.020]  a chopping block. And I can understand, but being afraid to put your career on the line,
[36:25.020 --> 36:30.020]  to me, that's not a good reason for abdicating.
[36:30.020 --> 36:31.020]  Gary?
[36:31.020 --> 36:33.020]  That's why I got involved. Yes, ma'am?
[36:33.020 --> 36:37.020]  Yes, it's not a good reason. Say that again. Your phone was cutting out.
[36:37.020 --> 36:45.020]  I'm sorry. Being afraid of political ramifications, wanting to further your career, wanting to
[36:45.020 --> 36:50.020]  move ahead in the appellate court system, those are not good reasons for abdicating your
[36:50.020 --> 36:51.020]  constitutional obligation.
[36:51.020 --> 36:52.020]  Absolutely not.
[36:52.020 --> 36:55.020]  Judges need to step up to the plate.
[36:55.020 --> 37:00.020]  Absolutely not. That's why they're put in that position to begin with. Now, Gary, and
[37:00.020 --> 37:04.020]  obviously, you know, you're doing this pro bono, but it's not just like you're doing
[37:04.020 --> 37:08.020]  it for free. It actually is costing you as you're talking about your staff. I mean, I
[37:08.020 --> 37:14.020]  have, this is, you know, very, you know, we all thank you for what you're doing. Can you
[37:14.020 --> 37:21.020]  please bring us up to speed on, number one, what happened today and where do you see this
[37:21.020 --> 37:23.020]  headed?
[37:23.020 --> 37:28.020]  Okay. What happened today is that we have the, let me digress one moment. Let me tell
[37:28.020 --> 37:34.020]  you one little story. This is a true story. Several years, my wife died back in 2001.
[37:34.020 --> 37:40.020]  After that, I was, and truly before that, more than a few times that she had me go off
[37:40.020 --> 37:46.020]  to do something instead of being with her daily, I gave a presentation on a panel. And
[37:46.020 --> 37:54.020]  on the panel was, and this was in the 2000, this was in February 2001. On the panel was
[37:54.020 --> 38:00.020]  Robert Bork, Barbara Olson. I don't know if you remember her. She was a CNN contributor,
[38:00.020 --> 38:05.020]  conservative book writer, married to the sister general at that time, Ted Olson. Barbara
[38:05.020 --> 38:13.020]  was killed in 9-11. She was on one of the planes that the terrorists were found. And
[38:13.020 --> 38:17.020]  she, out of the blue, asked, and there was another attorney there, and she, I was in
[38:17.020 --> 38:22.020]  pretty distinguished company there, Robert Bork and Barbara Olson. She asked a question.
[38:22.020 --> 38:27.020]  She said, if you were a judge in Nazi Germany during World War II, and I'm leading up to
[38:27.020 --> 38:33.020]  World War II, would you have enforced the laws, the Nazi laws against the Jews, or would
[38:33.020 --> 38:38.020]  you have found a way to get around them? And Robert Bork, much to my surprise, and I guess
[38:38.020 --> 38:41.020]  it shouldn't have been surprised, he answered that he would have enforced the laws because
[38:41.020 --> 38:47.020]  you can't have an agenda-driven judge. And the other attorney agreed with Robert Bork.
[38:47.020 --> 38:54.020]  And I got up there, and I had a much different answer. My response was that I would have
[38:54.020 --> 39:01.020]  found a way in German jurisprudence to find these anti-Jewish laws and constitutionals.
[39:01.020 --> 39:05.020]  I wouldn't have enforced them, and if I couldn't, I would have resigned as a judge and left
[39:05.020 --> 39:10.020]  the country, because your obligation as a judge is to follow the law and the Constitution.
[39:10.020 --> 39:14.020]  But also, there's a higher calling. And the German Constitution, I believe, would have
[39:14.020 --> 39:18.020]  given any German judge a way to get around, but most judges didn't.
[39:18.020 --> 39:22.020]  And the funny thing was, I'm with Robert Bork and Barbara Olson, and after I gave my speech,
[39:22.020 --> 39:27.020]  or gave that short response, I got a standing ovation to the people in the audience. They
[39:27.020 --> 39:32.020]  thought that even though I was basically advocating somewhat of an activist role, quote unquote,
[39:32.020 --> 39:36.020]  that I said the right thing. And that's what I look at it. We have to do the right thing.
[39:36.020 --> 39:40.020]  You can't walk away from these things just because someone might give us a death threat,
[39:40.020 --> 39:43.020]  as I've had, or give us obscene emails as I've had them.
[39:43.020 --> 39:49.020]  Now, what happened today? Hearing on the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the case,
[39:49.020 --> 40:00.020]  it's been a lot of lead up to that. We argued for hours, okay? We went from 8.30 until
[40:00.020 --> 40:06.020]  past noon. And there was sort of like a half hour break so everybody could use the bathroom.
[40:06.020 --> 40:09.020]  There were overflowed crowds, people all over the place. There were several hundred people
[40:09.020 --> 40:14.020]  there to listen. And this judge, as he did last time, it was last year, not September
[40:14.020 --> 40:18.020]  8th, set up a separate courtroom where people could sit in and watch it through the circuit
[40:18.020 --> 40:26.020]  television. And I, unfortunately, due to some problems got there a little late, so I missed
[40:26.020 --> 40:30.020]  the DOJ's presentation, but I knew what they were arguing is all in their paperwork.
[40:30.020 --> 40:34.020]  Because you're not allowed to argue brand new things unless the judge asks you a question.
[40:34.020 --> 40:38.020]  And I knew what Dr. Tate, I'm sorry, I knew what the other attorney was going to argue
[40:38.020 --> 40:44.020]  because I listened to her argue and she basically argues the same thing at every hearing on
[40:44.020 --> 40:47.020]  this issue about, you know, what's right and what's wrong.
[40:47.020 --> 40:52.020]  But I'm a constitutional attorney, but you've got to follow the constitution, but you've
[40:52.020 --> 41:00.020]  also got to argue what's on your plate. And so I wound up in a very unusual situation.
[41:00.020 --> 41:07.020]  The argument has been made prior to my getting there that the whole argument about, which
[41:07.020 --> 41:11.020]  was our argument, it was not the other attorney's argument, it was the argument we promoted
[41:11.020 --> 41:19.020]  on behalf of Dr. Drake and Barker Robinson, was that this was an unfair situation if you
[41:19.020 --> 41:26.020]  had somebody running for president who shouldn't have been there, you can't have a fair election.
[41:26.020 --> 41:31.020]  And the argument was made by the DOJ, apparently, DOJ, excuse me, that it doesn't make any
[41:31.020 --> 41:35.020]  difference because there's no way that Alan Tees and Wally Drake could have won because
[41:35.020 --> 41:39.020]  they weren't on a ballot, they weren't on this, they weren't on that.
[41:39.020 --> 41:45.020]  And that argument was not rebutted by the other attorney on our side, so I got up.
[41:45.020 --> 41:50.020]  And I thought it was important to rebut. And the comment that I made to the judge, and
[41:50.020 --> 41:56.020]  he had brought into this argument, apparently from the people that had been watching, he
[41:56.020 --> 42:00.020]  had dotted in agreeing with this argument, the comment that I made to that judge was,
[42:00.020 --> 42:08.020]  look, that's assuming a static analysis. But this is not a static situation. If Barack
[42:08.020 --> 42:14.020]  Obama's not on the ballot, Hillary Clinton is, you might have had people so disgusted
[42:14.020 --> 42:19.020]  with both parties that they could have turned to a new eight-gross parole. They could have
[42:19.020 --> 42:27.020]  turned to a third party. And he acknowledged that that was, you know, a legitimate argument.
[42:27.020 --> 42:35.020]  In fact, he went beyond my argument and commented himself that it was basically, following
[42:35.020 --> 42:39.020]  the DOJ's argument in that there could be no three-party system, there could only be
[42:39.020 --> 42:44.020]  a two-party system, because it would mean that if only the parties can choose, only
[42:44.020 --> 42:49.020]  the parties decide who's their candidate, and it doesn't matter what the law is, then
[42:49.020 --> 42:54.020]  there's no fairness, okay? Then only the two political parties can control it.
[42:54.020 --> 42:59.020]  And then I started talking about Robert Lafollette, the progressive party, Teddy Roosevelt,
[42:59.020 --> 43:05.020]  the bull moose party, eight-gross parole, and his party. And these were all situations
[43:05.020 --> 43:10.020]  where a third party, George Wallace and his party, were significant numbers of states
[43:10.020 --> 43:15.020]  for one. And we could have had a situation in the last election, if Mr. Obama was not
[43:15.020 --> 43:19.020]  the candidate, where a third party could have won. But if you have this situation where
[43:19.020 --> 43:25.020]  no one can challenge anybody's eligibility and the parties decide, then you can't have
[43:25.020 --> 43:29.020]  a third party, because everyone's just going to ignore the rules, do whatever they want,
[43:29.020 --> 43:33.020]  and lie, cheat, or steal. It's all okay, because no one has the right to challenge it.
[43:33.020 --> 43:40.020]  That was essentially the DOJ's argument. The other point that I made was that if you
[43:40.020 --> 43:46.020]  have a situation where no one—and this is what Mr. Obama has been arguing in the other
[43:46.020 --> 43:51.020]  cases—where no one has the right, except for the Democratic Party, to determine whether
[43:51.020 --> 43:56.020]  Mr. Obama is eligible, then you could have political parties—and I actually made this
[43:56.020 --> 44:00.020]  argument in the state case—you could have the Libertarian Party putting a ban on Randy's
[44:00.020 --> 44:07.020]  for 25 years. You could have the Green Party putting up Osama bin Laden. You could have
[44:07.020 --> 44:12.020]  the Republicans putting up Arnold Schwarzenegger. None of these people can qualify to serve
[44:12.020 --> 44:16.020]  as president. But you could put them up if the only person who gets to decide, which
[44:16.020 --> 44:21.020]  is what the Obama attorneys have been arguing, the only group that gets to decide who can
[44:21.020 --> 44:26.020]  run for president is the political party, then you could have all this strictly in violation
[44:26.020 --> 44:31.020]  of the Constitution, and no one can do anything about it. I mean, the DOJ's argument is
[44:31.020 --> 44:37.020]  no one has the right to stop it. And so I made an argument right here, and I got to
[44:37.020 --> 44:43.020]  close the argument for whatever reason. And I made the pitch basically that if you say
[44:43.020 --> 44:49.020]  that no one can enforce Article 2 of the Constitution, then what next part of the Constitution can
[44:49.020 --> 44:55.020]  no one enforce? Are you going to say, now no one can argue freedom of speech? No one
[44:55.020 --> 44:59.020]  can argue freedom of religion? No one can argue freedom of the press? Because no one
[44:59.020 --> 45:03.020]  has the right to challenge anything because the DOJ says that only Congress has the right
[45:03.020 --> 45:09.020]  to decide things. Where does it end? Do we go from Jefferson's concern about a mobocracy
[45:09.020 --> 45:16.020]  to a situation where only the elite in Congress can decide what our rights are? Forget the
[45:16.020 --> 45:21.020]  Constitution. Forget the court system. Forget anything except for what Congress wants it.
[45:21.020 --> 45:25.020]  What happens if Congress makes themselves all members into all, you know, basically
[45:25.020 --> 45:31.020]  does a Hugo Chavez and makes themselves reelected in perpetuity until they die, then they vote
[45:31.020 --> 45:35.020]  in their own replacement? I mean, we could, you know, that's potentially what the DOJ
[45:35.020 --> 45:40.020]  is saying. No one has the right to challenge anything against Congress. Anything but Congress,
[45:40.020 --> 45:42.020]  excuse me. And that's just plain wrong.
[45:42.020 --> 45:47.020]  That's absolutely preposterous. We have three branches of government for a reason,
[45:47.020 --> 45:58.020]  actually four, including the grand jury. Now, Gary, concerning the case, you were on Sunday,
[45:58.020 --> 46:04.020]  you were going to ask the court to be able to continue discovery even through the appeal
[46:04.020 --> 46:06.020]  process.
[46:06.020 --> 46:11.020]  Well, that is what we're going to do once we get to that point. Until the judge makes
[46:11.020 --> 46:15.020]  this decision, the judge, I was expecting a decision today. I'm just telling you, I
[46:15.020 --> 46:20.020]  was amazingly surprised that we didn't get a decision today because I thought the judge
[46:20.020 --> 46:21.020]  was ready to rule.
[46:21.020 --> 46:24.020]  I consider that a very good sign.
[46:24.020 --> 46:28.020]  Well, I don't know because I think that the judge was ready to rule to let the case
[46:28.020 --> 46:34.020]  continue. But we're going to see, you know, after doing this for almost 34 years, I gave
[46:34.020 --> 46:38.020]  up a long time ago prognosticating on what a judge is going to do. It's just you never
[46:38.020 --> 46:42.020]  can tell. I'm just telling you. You know, a judge gets up on the wrong side, has a fight
[46:42.020 --> 46:47.020]  with his wife or her husband. You just never know what's going to happen, what's going
[46:47.020 --> 46:48.020]  to impact it.
[46:48.020 --> 46:54.020]  I think this judge is a fair judge. And I think that he's going to do what he thinks
[46:54.020 --> 46:58.020]  is right, whether I agree or not. You know, that's a different matter. As long as the
[46:58.020 --> 47:03.020]  judge does his or her job, whether he agrees with it or not, that's all we can ask for.
[47:03.020 --> 47:05.020]  And that's what the appellate courts are for now.
[47:05.020 --> 47:11.020]  I have to tell you something completely improper, apparently it happened recently, and that
[47:11.020 --> 47:17.020]  the other attorney for the plaintiffs had been asking people to call the judge personally
[47:17.020 --> 47:23.020]  to try to influence the judge to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Now, you wouldn't want
[47:23.020 --> 47:29.020]  Mr. Obama's people doing that to the judge, and I don't want anybody doing it to the judge.
[47:29.020 --> 47:33.020]  And apparently that attorney put it up on the attorney's website urging people to do that.
[47:33.020 --> 47:37.020]  And the judge sued that attorney out early today because it's completely improper. Let
[47:37.020 --> 47:41.020]  me tell you, that attorney can get in a lot of trouble with barstow's cheese. That is
[47:41.020 --> 47:45.020]  an inappropriate attempt to influence the judge. And it's the type of thing that can
[47:45.020 --> 47:47.020]  turn the judge against you, okay?
[47:47.020 --> 47:52.020]  So, yeah, that is just plain wrong. And I'm going to actually put something up on our
[47:52.020 --> 47:57.020]  website urging people not to do that, because the judge was saying that his clerk was getting
[47:57.020 --> 48:01.020]  between 40 and 100 calls a day on it urging, you're trying to influence the judge. And
[48:01.020 --> 48:05.020]  that's just plain wrong. We don't want things like that happening. That's not a miracle.
[48:05.020 --> 48:10.020]  That's, you know, that's Russia where somebody calls and puts the fix in with the judge.
[48:10.020 --> 48:16.020]  No, we don't want that. That's just plain wrong, and we can't allow that to happen.
[48:16.020 --> 48:23.020]  Yeah. Sometimes I do seminars on due process, and I get people asking questions like, one
[48:23.020 --> 48:28.020]  guy said, what can you do to a clerk when he takes a false filing from the IRS? And
[48:28.020 --> 48:36.020]  I said, you'll be really careful what you ask for. The last thing I want is a judge
[48:36.020 --> 48:41.020]  that can be influenced by something outside the courtroom.
[48:41.020 --> 48:46.020]  Yeah, that's absolutely ridiculous. It's preposterous. I mean, you lobby Congress. You
[48:46.020 --> 48:51.020]  lobby your representatives. You call the representatives and send your congressmen a
[48:51.020 --> 48:56.020]  letter and these sorts of things. You don't do that to the courts. It's a different
[48:56.020 --> 49:03.020]  function. It's totally disrespectful, and it could damage the person's or the
[49:03.020 --> 49:07.020]  entity's chances of winning their case that someone would actually be trying to
[49:07.020 --> 49:09.020]  help.
[49:09.020 --> 49:13.020]  Yeah, you want to give a judge an excuse to back out of a case. You have a bunch of
[49:13.020 --> 49:16.020]  people call him, and he says, well, I've got to refuse myself because, you know,
[49:16.020 --> 49:20.020]  all this attempts to personally influence me. You know, that's, I mean, it's not
[49:20.020 --> 49:25.020]  only improper. It's also something that somebody could wind up being in very
[49:25.020 --> 49:28.020]  serious trouble, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Okay. But it's just
[49:28.020 --> 49:30.020]  completely improper.
[49:30.020 --> 49:37.020]  When I go into a courtroom, which I was in one today and actually got a win, but
[49:37.020 --> 49:44.020]  when I go into a courtroom, I'm pro se, so I'm extremely careful about my posture.
[49:44.020 --> 49:50.020]  I'm especially careful what I say in front of the judge because I don't want to
[49:50.020 --> 49:55.020]  lose my credibility of what little I have, and this surprises me if someone is
[49:55.020 --> 49:57.020]  not thinking.
[49:57.020 --> 49:59.020]  That an attorney would advocate this.
[49:59.020 --> 50:02.020]  Yeah, I would much rather the judge lose their credibility on the record.
[50:02.020 --> 50:08.020]  So, Gary, okay, so please continue. What's the next step? Where is this headed?
[50:08.020 --> 50:11.020]  The judge is going to issue a decision. I believe it will be in a couple of days.
[50:11.020 --> 50:15.020]  I think the judge pretty much knows what he wants to do. I think the judge, as he
[50:15.020 --> 50:20.020]  stated several times, is disappointed in all the attorneys. Again, as I stated
[50:20.020 --> 50:25.020]  previously, the judge was looking for more arguments from the DOJ on other
[50:25.020 --> 50:29.020]  issues. He didn't get them, and because the DOJ didn't argue them, you know, it's
[50:29.020 --> 50:34.020]  not up to us on the plaintiff's side to tell the DOJ, hey, you should argue this,
[50:34.020 --> 50:37.020]  and we're going to respond to this because you didn't argue. That's not our job.
[50:37.020 --> 50:42.020]  So, you know, give and take. I think the judge is going to rule quickly. I really
[50:42.020 --> 50:48.020]  do. I think if I was a betting person, and I'm not, as I say, the state of
[50:48.020 --> 50:52.020]  Pennsylvania only bet on sure things in the San Francisco 49ers, but if I was a
[50:52.020 --> 50:56.020]  betting person, I think that part of the case is going to survive. And let me
[50:56.020 --> 51:00.020]  tell you, if any of the cases, and I'm telling you this because, you know, out
[51:00.020 --> 51:03.020]  in California, they're not going to, you know, I don't think they're going to
[51:03.020 --> 51:06.020]  hear this in Judge's courtroom. I think that part of the case is going to
[51:06.020 --> 51:10.020]  survive. I think that there's a lot of things in the lawsuit originally brought
[51:10.020 --> 51:14.020]  that have nothing to do with this issue. It's all venting by the attorney. It's
[51:14.020 --> 51:19.020]  completely improper and inappropriate. I think that suing Hillary Clinton over
[51:19.020 --> 51:25.020]  this is just not, it's just out there. And suing all, the only reason the
[51:25.020 --> 51:28.020]  Department of Justice isn't involved is because the attorney sued all these
[51:28.020 --> 51:33.020]  government officials in their official capacity. And then, despite suing them,
[51:33.020 --> 51:36.020]  didn't ask for any release against them. If you sued Joe Jones because he broke
[51:36.020 --> 51:40.020]  a contract, you say, I'm suing Joe Jones because he broke a contract. Give me
[51:40.020 --> 51:44.020]  $14,000 from broke contract. When you sue Hillary Clinton, you say, I'm suing
[51:44.020 --> 51:48.020]  you. And then you don't even say what you're suing them on. That's just stupid.
[51:48.020 --> 51:52.020]  And that's just a recipe for disaster. And you're going to get your head handed
[51:52.020 --> 51:55.020]  to, you know, a lot of the case. Now, unfortunately, when I got involved in the
[51:55.020 --> 51:59.020]  case, I was stuck with the complaint as it was. We actually submitted a proposed
[51:59.020 --> 52:04.020]  amended complaint to the court last Thursday. I don't know what the judge
[52:04.020 --> 52:09.020]  is going to do with it, because it was basically a case focused on Mr. Obama.
[52:09.020 --> 52:12.020]  If we get all these other defendants out of there, then we may be able to get the
[52:12.020 --> 52:16.020]  DOJ out of there, and your tax money may no longer be defending him. He's going
[52:16.020 --> 52:20.020]  to have to use some of that $750 million you raised on the internet to defend
[52:20.020 --> 52:26.020]  himself in this case, which is what our goal. And if all those other defendants
[52:26.020 --> 52:31.020]  are removed from the case and the case survives, you probably will be seeing this
[52:31.020 --> 52:36.020]  pile of motion very shortly along those lines. But that's just me talking from
[52:36.020 --> 52:37.020]  my head.
[52:37.020 --> 52:42.020]  Now, Gary, let me ask you something here, because this is, in all reality, could
[52:42.020 --> 52:50.020]  be a constitutional crisis, because if Obama was and is not eligible to be
[52:50.020 --> 52:56.020]  President, then it's not like he would be impeached or even removed from office.
[52:56.020 --> 53:02.020]  He never took office. So what would happen here? I mean, would the U.S. Marshals
[53:02.020 --> 53:06.020]  go and drag him out? I mean, what would be the remedy here? And who would be
[53:06.020 --> 53:10.020]  President? Or would there be another election? What would happen?
[53:10.020 --> 53:14.020]  You know, the judge was asking questions along those lines, and like I said,
[53:14.020 --> 53:18.020]  somebody had come and he must have been in the courtroom today. And kind of all
[53:18.020 --> 53:21.020]  the other attorneys kind of handed it off one way or the other. The DOJ as well
[53:21.020 --> 53:25.020]  said, well, one of the reasons why you have no jurisdiction, Your Honor, is that
[53:25.020 --> 53:29.020]  he can be impeached and he can be removed if he's disqualified on the 20th
[53:29.020 --> 53:33.020]  Amendment. And that means Congress has to do it. And I waited, and the other
[53:33.020 --> 53:37.020]  attorney on our side didn't really respond to all that. That's not an
[53:37.020 --> 53:41.020]  attorney's choice. So I got out there and I pointed it out. And the court took
[53:41.020 --> 53:45.020]  a sad affirmation in response to my comments, acknowledging that, yeah, it was
[53:45.020 --> 53:50.020]  correct, that if you look at the impeachment statute, the impeachment
[53:50.020 --> 53:57.020]  statutes are set up for a properly elected president. If you look at the 25th
[53:57.020 --> 54:02.020]  Amendment, it's set up for a properly elected president. If Mr. Obama is not a
[54:02.020 --> 54:07.020]  natural born citizen, he was never elected. His election is void av initio, as
[54:07.020 --> 54:13.020]  they say in the fancy Latin text. In other words, he never existed as president.
[54:13.020 --> 54:18.020]  Okay? And the judge asked what that meant, and asked me what that meant. And I
[54:18.020 --> 54:24.020]  answered, basically, every nomination to any position, no validity. Any
[54:24.020 --> 54:29.020]  executive order you sign, no validity. Any law you sign, no validity. It's all
[54:29.020 --> 54:33.020]  a do-over. Okay? And of course, the D.O.T. said, well, we can't have that
[54:33.020 --> 54:37.020]  because that would be a constant, you know, oh, it would be terrible, huh? No,
[54:37.020 --> 54:41.020]  it's part of the Constitution. It's part of our history. It's part of the law.
[54:41.020 --> 54:49.020]  You know, what's terrible is that this man has basically totally hijacked the
[54:49.020 --> 54:53.020]  whole nation, and he's not even president because he's not eligible to be
[54:53.020 --> 54:57.020]  president. Yeah, but he sure managed to spend a bunch of his money. Therefore, I
[54:57.020 --> 55:02.020]  think he should also be charged with embezzlement on a grand scale. Yeah, I
[55:02.020 --> 55:06.020]  don't, I kind of let out a couple secrets. I'm probably sure enough thinking
[55:06.020 --> 55:09.020]  about, you know, talking about the D.O.J., and I'm not going to go too much
[55:09.020 --> 55:15.020]  further, but I will tell you that we, my foundation, our state justice
[55:15.020 --> 55:20.020]  foundation, working with a number of attorneys around the country, we have
[55:20.020 --> 55:25.020]  plans that are going to be unveiled in the next couple of weeks, in which
[55:25.020 --> 55:31.020]  we're going to be filing right now plans nine additional lawsuits,
[55:31.020 --> 55:34.020]  challenging a variety of things having to do with Mr. Obama. All tied in to
[55:34.020 --> 55:38.020]  the eligibility issue, but challenging various aspects of things that he's
[55:38.020 --> 55:44.020]  done on that basis. And so it's going to get real interesting. Mr. Obama's
[55:44.020 --> 55:47.020]  attorneys have basically threatened to come after us for sanctions and, you
[55:47.020 --> 55:52.020]  know, you can't do this and, you know, this is preposterous and blah, blah,
[55:52.020 --> 55:55.020]  blah. That's fine. You know, I've been threatened before. Planned Parenthood
[55:55.020 --> 56:00.020]  came after me a number of years ago. You know, they said they were going to
[56:00.020 --> 56:04.020]  destroy the United States Justice Foundation and me personally financially
[56:04.020 --> 56:07.020]  when we challenged them over their refusal to report pedophiles to law
[56:07.020 --> 56:10.020]  enforcement, which we documented. They didn't even deny it, by the way. They
[56:10.020 --> 56:16.020]  just said we don't have to go there. And, you know, these people have come
[56:16.020 --> 56:19.020]  after me before. They're going to come after me again. God has put me, I
[56:19.020 --> 56:24.020]  believe, into, led me along a certain path, put me in a certain place, and as
[56:24.020 --> 56:28.020]  long as until he tells me to shut up and go home or, you know, shut up and
[56:28.020 --> 56:32.020]  come back, come to him, I'm going to be fighting this stuff. But, you know, we
[56:32.020 --> 56:36.020]  just have to stand firm. But we have to do it with love in our hearts. We have
[56:36.020 --> 56:41.020]  to do it with the love of Jesus Christ. And these people that, you know, want to
[56:41.020 --> 56:45.020]  harass people on the other side or people on the other side of one-and-a-half,
[56:45.020 --> 56:49.020]  that's not right. It's not right. I've had people that claim to be Christians
[56:49.020 --> 56:55.020]  sending me obscene emails because, well, you don't work, you know, I don't like
[56:55.020 --> 56:59.020]  you because this attorney says that you shouldn't be involved in this case. I
[56:59.020 --> 57:02.020]  don't care what the attorney says. I don't care what the clients want. The clients
[57:02.020 --> 57:06.020]  want to help. You know, I'm doing this for free, not getting paid. You know,
[57:06.020 --> 57:09.020]  some attorney doesn't like me. Some attorney doesn't like me. They got their
[57:09.020 --> 57:14.020]  own ego prompt. That's their cause. I don't care.
[57:14.020 --> 57:19.020]  Well, Gary, this is just an incredible story that you're telling here. And, you
[57:19.020 --> 57:26.020]  know, I really have a lot of respect here and love for you as a Christian
[57:26.020 --> 57:31.020]  because you're doing what you're doing for the right reasons. You know, this is
[57:31.020 --> 57:37.020]  a horrible situation. This is a coup. This is a coup of our government, of our
[57:37.020 --> 57:40.020]  country, and something has to be done about it.
[57:40.020 --> 57:47.020]  Yes. The thing I'm the most stricken by is that we have such a high-profile
[57:47.020 --> 57:53.020]  case. We have high-profile attorneys, and we have attorneys doing things that
[57:53.020 --> 57:57.020]  sound absolutely incompetent and childish.
[57:57.020 --> 58:04.020]  It's hubris. They think they don't need to even prepare a case. Listen, we're at
[58:04.020 --> 58:09.020]  the top of the hour. We've got about 45 seconds left. Closing comments, please,
[58:09.020 --> 58:11.020]  Gary.
[58:11.020 --> 58:14.020]  Well, anybody wants to keep up on what we're doing, go to our website,
[58:14.020 --> 58:21.020]  www.usjf.net, www.usjf.net. Even though I'm working this case for free, it's
[58:21.020 --> 58:26.020]  still expensive, and we're raising money to pay for transfer costs, appeal costs.
[58:26.020 --> 58:29.020]  You know, all the stuff that's just the out-of-pocket stuff. So you can go to
[58:29.020 --> 58:33.020]  that website. There's a place to donate if you want. You can write. There's an
[58:33.020 --> 58:36.020]  email address where you can contact me on that website and our office address,
[58:36.020 --> 58:40.020]  our phone number, stuff. If you have questions, give us a call. Thank you very
[58:40.020 --> 58:41.020]  much for having me on your show.
[58:41.020 --> 58:46.020]  Thank you so much, Gary, and I hope that you will come on our show again soon
[58:46.020 --> 58:49.020]  and keep us updated as this case progresses.
[58:49.020 --> 58:52.020]  So give me a call in about two weeks, and we'll see if we've got those other
[58:52.020 --> 58:53.020]  nine lawsuits filed, okay?
[58:53.020 --> 58:56.020]  Excellent. All right, listeners, we'll be right back after this break.
[59:23.020 --> 59:27.020]  Bring a friend and tell them to bring a friend. This festival is for everyone
[59:27.020 --> 59:32.020]  who loves freedom of all ages. Don't miss the Midwest Liberty Festival at the
[59:32.020 --> 59:38.020]  State Fairgrounds in DuCoin, Illinois, October 9th, 10th, and 11th. Visit the
[59:38.020 --> 59:46.020]  website at www.MidwestLibertyFest.com for all the details. That's www.MidwestLibertyFest.com.
[59:46.020 --> 59:50.020]  Don't let the fall believes get you down. Come join the fun. Tickets are going
[59:50.020 --> 59:55.020]  fast, so don't miss out on the Midwest Liberty Fest, the best Oktoberfest this
[59:55.020 --> 01:00:00.020]  year. That's www.MidwestLibertyFest.com.
[01:00:00.020 --> 01:00:04.020]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.020 --> 01:00:09.020]  Mohammed El-Boradi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
[01:00:09.020 --> 01:00:13.020]  said Sunday Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East, given the
[01:00:13.020 --> 01:00:19.020]  nuclear arms it possesses. El-Boradi said Israel has refused to allow inspections
[01:00:19.020 --> 01:00:24.020]  into its nuclear installations for 30 years. Israel refuses to confirm or deny
[01:00:24.020 --> 01:00:30.020]  the allegation. In Afghanistan, a policeman conducting a joint operation
[01:00:30.020 --> 01:00:35.020]  with U.S. soldiers opened fire Friday, killing two Americans, before fleeing
[01:00:35.020 --> 01:00:40.020]  and raising fears that militants have infiltrated the ranks of Afghan forces.
[01:00:40.020 --> 01:00:46.020]  In Iraq, Sunday, five Iraqis were killed and 21 wounded. Four people were killed
[01:00:46.020 --> 01:00:51.020]  with bombs and a fifth was shot dead escaping prison.
[01:00:51.020 --> 01:00:56.020]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[01:00:56.020 --> 01:01:00.020]  In Afghanistan Saturday, eight American soldiers and two Afghan policemen were
[01:01:00.020 --> 01:01:05.020]  killed. It was the worst attack on NATO forces in 14 months and one of the
[01:01:05.020 --> 01:01:10.020]  deadliest battles of the war. The London Times reported about 300 insurgents
[01:01:10.020 --> 01:01:17.020]  attacked a pair of isolated U.S. outposts with machine guns, rockets and grenades.
[01:01:17.020 --> 01:01:22.020]  The battle lasted all day. U.S. and Afghan soldiers finally repelled them with
[01:01:22.020 --> 01:01:27.020]  the help of U.S. helicopters and warplanes, but at heavy cost. The attack came
[01:01:27.020 --> 01:01:32.020]  at a crucial juncture in the war, with Barack Obama soon to decide whether to
[01:01:32.020 --> 01:01:37.020]  accept a request by General Stanley McChrystal for 40,000 extra troops or to
[01:01:37.020 --> 01:01:43.020]  reduce the counterinsurgency operation and focus on al-Qaeda. About 400
[01:01:43.020 --> 01:01:47.020]  coalition troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year, the majority of
[01:01:47.020 --> 01:01:52.020]  them American. A Taliban spokesman said their fighters captured 35 policemen
[01:01:52.020 --> 01:01:58.020]  whose fate would be decided by the movement's provincial council.
[01:01:58.020 --> 01:02:04.020]  According to top generals, only $500 million of $6.6 billion in U.S. military
[01:02:04.020 --> 01:02:11.020]  aid sent to Pakistan between 2002 and 2008 actually ended up in the hands of
[01:02:11.020 --> 01:02:16.020]  the military. Officials say much of it went to then President Pervez Musharraf's
[01:02:16.020 --> 01:02:21.020]  various subsidy programs to bolster his sagging domestic image. Much of the money
[01:02:21.020 --> 01:02:26.020]  that did get to Pakistan's military was spent on equipment to fight India as
[01:02:26.020 --> 01:02:31.020]  opposed to fighting insurgencies the U.S. was hoping it would target. A Pentagon
[01:02:31.020 --> 01:02:36.020]  spokesman said, we don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we've
[01:02:36.020 --> 01:02:40.020]  given it to them. The lack of accountability is bound to raise concerns
[01:02:40.020 --> 01:02:45.020]  with the Senate, which approved a bill to triple non-military aid to Pakistan
[01:02:45.020 --> 01:02:50.020]  last month. The same bill also authorized military aid at whatever level was
[01:02:50.020 --> 01:02:55.020]  necessary to defeat al-Qaeda. Critics say this could potentially be an enormous
[01:02:55.020 --> 01:03:02.020]  black hole.
[01:03:25.020 --> 01:03:46.020]  Okay, we are back. We're opening up the phone lines now, 512-646-1984 for some
[01:03:46.020 --> 01:03:52.020]  follow-up discussion. And, you know, guys, this is just an incredible situation.
[01:03:52.020 --> 01:03:59.020]  And, you know, I want to ask both of y'all what y'all think here would be the
[01:03:59.020 --> 01:04:06.020]  appropriate, you know, cause of action if it turns out that it's proven in court
[01:04:06.020 --> 01:04:12.020]  that Obama was never eligible to be president to begin with. I mean, he can't
[01:04:12.020 --> 01:04:17.020]  be impeached. He can't be removed from office. He never took office. I don't
[01:04:17.020 --> 01:04:23.020]  personally, I don't think it's appropriate to put Biden, the vice president,
[01:04:23.020 --> 01:04:30.020]  in the presidency and then Pelosi in the vice presidency because in the
[01:04:30.020 --> 01:04:35.020]  Constitution it only allows for the vice president to take the presidency if the
[01:04:35.020 --> 01:04:41.020]  president is either impeached or dies or is somehow determined to be
[01:04:41.020 --> 01:04:46.020]  incompetent or something. I think that there needs to be another election.
[01:04:46.020 --> 01:04:50.020]  Yeah, we talked about this before. But somebody would have to take, somebody
[01:04:50.020 --> 01:04:55.020]  would have to take control of the executive branch in the meantime and who,
[01:04:55.020 --> 01:04:59.020]  I guess they would have to put Biden in there. They're really, nothing else
[01:04:59.020 --> 01:05:04.020]  makes any sense. Not Biden because we used to, we used to elect the president
[01:05:04.020 --> 01:05:08.020]  and the vice president separately. But what I'm saying is just temporarily, I
[01:05:08.020 --> 01:05:13.020]  mean, absolutely there has to be another election, period. But who would be
[01:05:13.020 --> 01:05:21.020]  put in? Neither was Biden. Oh man, good point. Now, here's the other problem.
[01:05:21.020 --> 01:05:25.020]  If Nancy Pelosi is put in charge of this country, you may as well just grab the
[01:05:25.020 --> 01:05:29.020]  rim and hang on for dear life because she's going to pull the handle and flush
[01:05:29.020 --> 01:05:33.020]  it all. She's going to do a worse job than this man's ever attempted to do and
[01:05:33.020 --> 01:05:39.020]  he stinks. That's just direct, straight up personal opinion on the subject. Nancy
[01:05:39.020 --> 01:05:43.020]  Pelosi should have been committed to the ward room a long time ago. She
[01:05:43.020 --> 01:05:47.020]  shouldn't be Speaker of the House. You know what, and Randy, you're right
[01:05:47.020 --> 01:05:52.020]  because if Obama was not properly elected and put in office, that means
[01:05:52.020 --> 01:05:57.020]  Biden wasn't either because you don't vote for the vice president separately.
[01:05:57.020 --> 01:06:01.020]  They're both out. That means it would fall to the Speaker of the House. It
[01:06:01.020 --> 01:06:07.020]  would be Pelosi and then I'm not sure who would ascend to the vice presidency.
[01:06:07.020 --> 01:06:11.020]  I mean, hopefully that would just be a temporary situation. Absolutely, there
[01:06:11.020 --> 01:06:15.020]  would have to be another election. I mean, this is a constitutional crisis.
[01:06:15.020 --> 01:06:21.020]  This is chaotic. It's a coup. It's a coup d'etat. I think the greatest thing
[01:06:21.020 --> 01:06:27.020]  that could happen would be a constitutional crisis. Wake up, everybody.
[01:06:27.020 --> 01:06:34.020]  Well, you know what, to be honest, according to law, jurisdiction, it really
[01:06:34.020 --> 01:06:38.020]  shouldn't even affect us that much because the states are sovereign and the
[01:06:38.020 --> 01:06:43.020]  federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction anyway except on specific
[01:06:43.020 --> 01:06:47.020]  properties that have been ceded to the federal government inside from the
[01:06:47.020 --> 01:06:54.020]  state government, signed by the governor. They don't have any say around
[01:06:54.020 --> 01:06:56.020]  here anyway.
[01:06:56.020 --> 01:07:03.020]  In listening to Mr. Creep, I was taken with the kinds of arguments that were
[01:07:03.020 --> 01:07:09.020]  being brought. Now, this is not a traffic ticket we're dealing with here.
[01:07:09.020 --> 01:07:16.020]  This is the President of the United States and these DOJ attorneys can't come
[01:07:16.020 --> 01:07:21.020]  in bringing these lame arguments.
[01:07:21.020 --> 01:07:26.020]  But they are coming in bringing these, I mean, not only lame arguments but
[01:07:26.020 --> 01:07:32.020]  almost insane arguments saying they don't believe a certain court case exists
[01:07:32.020 --> 01:07:39.020]  when it's all over Pacer and it's in the court record and it's on Lexis and
[01:07:39.020 --> 01:07:43.020]  everything else. Give me a break. I mean, that's just psychopathic.
[01:07:43.020 --> 01:07:48.020]  Randy, do you remember what in that information on the city attorney, what I
[01:07:48.020 --> 01:07:52.020]  wrote in there about what Confucius say?
[01:07:52.020 --> 01:07:58.020]  That an idiot, a criminal is a criminal no matter what label he has?
[01:07:58.020 --> 01:08:03.020]  What is address, occupation or title? A criminal is a criminal no matter what
[01:08:03.020 --> 01:08:08.020]  his address, occupation or title. That includes this guy.
[01:08:08.020 --> 01:08:09.020]  I agree.
[01:08:09.020 --> 01:08:14.020]  What he did is totally criminal. It is fraud, it is extortion.
[01:08:14.020 --> 01:08:23.020]  What I was most concerned with is here I would like to see two sets of really
[01:08:23.020 --> 01:08:30.020]  smart attorneys bringing good, well-founded legal arguments and what we
[01:08:30.020 --> 01:08:33.020]  get is crapola.
[01:08:33.020 --> 01:08:38.020]  What we get is the plaintiffs have all the law on their side and the
[01:08:38.020 --> 01:08:44.020]  defendants who are represented by the Department of Justice are just showing
[01:08:44.020 --> 01:08:50.020]  arrogance, hubris, childish behavior just because they think they can just do
[01:08:50.020 --> 01:08:52.020]  whatever they want and get away with it.
[01:08:52.020 --> 01:08:58.020]  That's true. I mean, you couldn't get a DOJ attorney to come up with an
[01:08:58.020 --> 01:09:02.020]  original on-point argument if you tattooed it on the behind of the guy next
[01:09:02.020 --> 01:09:06.020]  to him to read, which of course we know they'd spend a lot of time looking at
[01:09:06.020 --> 01:09:09.020]  anyway, but that's a whole other issue.
[01:09:09.020 --> 01:09:13.020]  They're not coming with any statute. They're not coming with any case law.
[01:09:13.020 --> 01:09:18.020]  Well, there isn't any. I mean, there isn't any. On this issue, there is no case
[01:09:18.020 --> 01:09:19.020]  law.
[01:09:19.020 --> 01:09:25.020]  They're just saying Congress is the only entity that has authority of it just
[01:09:25.020 --> 01:09:27.020]  because we say so.
[01:09:27.020 --> 01:09:32.020]  Okay. I guess in saying all this, I probably need to back up a little bit.
[01:09:32.020 --> 01:09:34.020]  I'm violating one of my own rules.
[01:09:34.020 --> 01:09:40.020]  We are only listening to one side and his is a paraphrase, so it may not be
[01:09:40.020 --> 01:09:43.020]  quite as bad as it sounds.
[01:09:43.020 --> 01:09:49.020]  I mean, they may have made a convincing sounding argument just from his position
[01:09:49.020 --> 01:09:53.020]  it was the wrong argument, totally off point.
[01:09:53.020 --> 01:09:57.020]  Even if he exaggerated a little bit, I mean, it's still outrageous.
[01:09:57.020 --> 01:09:58.020]  Go ahead. I'm sorry.
[01:09:58.020 --> 01:10:02.020]  I don't see how they could offer an argument.
[01:10:02.020 --> 01:10:04.020]  I mean, let's face facts.
[01:10:04.020 --> 01:10:08.020]  The Constitution is very clear on the process to which the man, the position is
[01:10:08.020 --> 01:10:12.020]  supposed to be elected and who is eligible to fill it, how they're eligible
[01:10:12.020 --> 01:10:13.020]  to fill it.
[01:10:13.020 --> 01:10:19.020]  He has failed to the nth degree to produce any valid evidence of any kind that
[01:10:19.020 --> 01:10:21.020]  he was ever eligible to fill it.
[01:10:21.020 --> 01:10:24.020]  I think that wasn't the question here.
[01:10:24.020 --> 01:10:34.020]  The question here was who has authority to make this particular decision?
[01:10:34.020 --> 01:10:38.020]  Yes, but what he stated was absolutely correct.
[01:10:38.020 --> 01:10:44.020]  Every rule that they're dealing with deals with a properly elected president,
[01:10:44.020 --> 01:10:46.020]  which we do not have.
[01:10:46.020 --> 01:10:56.020]  Now, the question here was who has authority to challenge the eligibility of
[01:10:56.020 --> 01:10:57.020]  the president?
[01:10:57.020 --> 01:11:02.020]  Now, it's obvious, you know, everybody looks pretty clear that he hasn't
[01:11:02.020 --> 01:11:03.020]  proved up that he's president.
[01:11:03.020 --> 01:11:10.020]  Okay, so if we accept that, who has specific delegated authority to
[01:11:10.020 --> 01:11:12.020]  challenge it?
[01:11:12.020 --> 01:11:17.020]  Well, as we spoke about on break, if it's a constitutional issue, my personal
[01:11:17.020 --> 01:11:20.020]  opinion would be any citizen has.
[01:11:20.020 --> 01:11:23.020]  That's not in Constitution.
[01:11:23.020 --> 01:11:24.020]  No, it's not.
[01:11:24.020 --> 01:11:26.020]  If it's not forbidden, then we can do it.
[01:11:26.020 --> 01:11:27.020]  They're by us.
[01:11:27.020 --> 01:11:28.020]  We put it into place.
[01:11:28.020 --> 01:11:30.020]  We'll make it exist.
[01:11:30.020 --> 01:11:33.020]  Okay, this question's not a Constitution.
[01:11:33.020 --> 01:11:34.020]  Yeah, but Randy, hold on.
[01:11:34.020 --> 01:11:35.020]  That's not really the issue.
[01:11:35.020 --> 01:11:41.020]  They're not challenging the standing of the plaintiffs.
[01:11:41.020 --> 01:11:46.020]  What they're challenging is that they're saying the courts, the judicial
[01:11:46.020 --> 01:11:54.020]  branch, has no authority to make a ruling or to make any determination over
[01:11:54.020 --> 01:11:55.020]  this issue.
[01:11:55.020 --> 01:11:57.020]  That's the bigger, way bigger problem.
[01:11:57.020 --> 01:12:00.020]  And you know what, if the courts don't have authority over this, then who
[01:12:00.020 --> 01:12:01.020]  does?
[01:12:01.020 --> 01:12:05.020]  I mean, there are separate branches of government for a reason.
[01:12:05.020 --> 01:12:11.020]  And Congress has delegated certain authorities of impeachment and
[01:12:11.020 --> 01:12:13.020]  investigative powers and such and such.
[01:12:13.020 --> 01:12:18.020]  But the courts, the judicial branch, is the branch of government put in
[01:12:18.020 --> 01:12:23.020]  place to interpret the Constitution and interpret law.
[01:12:23.020 --> 01:12:25.020]  So come on.
[01:12:25.020 --> 01:12:27.020]  There's no other choice.
[01:12:27.020 --> 01:12:32.020]  How can the DOJ say, oh, the courts don't have a right or a jurisdiction?
[01:12:32.020 --> 01:12:37.020]  They're saying that, just forget the courts altogether.
[01:12:37.020 --> 01:12:42.020]  We're the executive branch, and we can do whatever we want.
[01:12:42.020 --> 01:12:44.020]  That's not going to apply.
[01:12:44.020 --> 01:12:45.020]  Yeah, I understand that.
[01:12:45.020 --> 01:12:50.020]  But so I'm taking the other side, and I want to say to the judge, okay, you
[01:12:50.020 --> 01:12:55.020]  claim you have this particular authority.
[01:12:55.020 --> 01:12:58.020]  Where do you get it?
[01:12:58.020 --> 01:13:00.020]  Because the plaintiffs are suing.
[01:13:00.020 --> 01:13:01.020]  That's why.
[01:13:01.020 --> 01:13:04.020]  And if they have standing, then they have standing, and they're bringing it
[01:13:04.020 --> 01:13:05.020]  into court.
[01:13:05.020 --> 01:13:10.020]  Well, I can go into a court and have standing to raise an issue, and the
[01:13:10.020 --> 01:13:17.020]  court can still not have subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:13:17.020 --> 01:13:19.020]  That's what they're going after.
[01:13:19.020 --> 01:13:24.020]  They're asking this judge, where did you get subject matter jurisdiction to
[01:13:24.020 --> 01:13:27.020]  rule on this particular issue?
[01:13:27.020 --> 01:13:30.020]  This is a question of law.
[01:13:30.020 --> 01:13:32.020]  It's not a question of what's right and wrong.
[01:13:32.020 --> 01:13:42.020]  This is going to the foundational structure of the separation of branches of
[01:13:42.020 --> 01:13:49.020]  our government and checks and balances, and where the courts get the authority
[01:13:49.020 --> 01:13:58.020]  is that each branch of government was put in place to check the other two.
[01:13:58.020 --> 01:14:02.020]  I have talked about this since the beginning of this show.
[01:14:02.020 --> 01:14:08.020]  The only way that this constitutional republic is ever going to really fly is
[01:14:08.020 --> 01:14:18.020]  that each branch of government has to have checking power over the other two
[01:14:18.020 --> 01:14:19.020]  branches.
[01:14:19.020 --> 01:14:25.020]  And if that's not the way it is, if the courts only have checking power over
[01:14:25.020 --> 01:14:31.020]  the legislative branch, but the courts have no check over the executive
[01:14:31.020 --> 01:14:34.020]  branch, it's all over.
[01:14:34.020 --> 01:14:39.020]  Each branch of government has to check the other two branches, or we can just
[01:14:39.020 --> 01:14:41.020]  forget the whole thing.
[01:14:41.020 --> 01:14:45.020]  And that is the foundational principles of our republic.
[01:14:45.020 --> 01:14:54.020]  But that's a gross oversimplification in that while the judiciary certainly has
[01:14:54.020 --> 01:15:01.020]  authority to issue checks and balances to the executive, they do not have
[01:15:01.020 --> 01:15:06.020]  unrestrained power to check the executive.
[01:15:06.020 --> 01:15:13.020]  Where does the court get specific power to make this particular decision?
[01:15:13.020 --> 01:15:17.020]  What I think is wrong is they're not raising the right issue.
[01:15:17.020 --> 01:15:25.020]  Well, the plaintiffs in this case, they're basically demanding, this is my
[01:15:25.020 --> 01:15:31.020]  understanding, the plaintiffs in this case are demanding as citizens, as
[01:15:31.020 --> 01:15:38.020]  sovereign human beings here to make Obama, they're asking the courts to make
[01:15:38.020 --> 01:15:44.020]  Obama man up, ante up, and show proof of eligibility here.
[01:15:44.020 --> 01:15:51.020]  And it says in the Constitution that in order for someone to be eligible to be
[01:15:51.020 --> 01:15:55.020]  president, they have to meet certain requirements, they have to be natural
[01:15:55.020 --> 01:15:58.020]  born citizen, have to be 35 years old, whatever, these things.
[01:15:58.020 --> 01:16:05.020]  And so somebody is going to have to enforce that.
[01:16:05.020 --> 01:16:10.020]  That's the question, that's precisely the question.
[01:16:10.020 --> 01:16:14.020]  Okay, but the thing is there's a tort issue here, Randy.
[01:16:14.020 --> 01:16:19.020]  Any powers not delegated to this government is left to the states in the
[01:16:19.020 --> 01:16:22.020]  field. Yep, there you go, it's up to the states.
[01:16:22.020 --> 01:16:25.020]  That was where I was going from the start.
[01:16:25.020 --> 01:16:28.020]  And it's also about tort, it's also about tort.
[01:16:28.020 --> 01:16:34.020]  If someone is damaged, if someone feels they're damaged and they feel they have
[01:16:34.020 --> 01:16:37.020]  a cause of action, then they have to take it to the courts.
[01:16:37.020 --> 01:16:44.020]  That's the only way.
[01:16:44.020 --> 01:16:48.020]  The thing is none of the state courts have the guts to do anything about it.
[01:16:48.020 --> 01:16:53.020]  We need to get Gary back on again because this whole case is involved with the
[01:16:53.020 --> 01:16:55.020]  state courts as well.
[01:16:55.020 --> 01:16:56.020]  It's very complicated.
[01:16:56.020 --> 01:16:57.020]  We'll be right back.
[01:16:57.020 --> 01:17:05.020]  We're going to take your calls.
[01:17:05.020 --> 01:17:09.020]  September 11th was not just a terrible tragedy that took the lives of thousands
[01:17:09.020 --> 01:17:11.020]  of innocent people.
[01:17:11.020 --> 01:17:15.020]  It was a violent and aggressive seizure of power and a transformation of both
[01:17:15.020 --> 01:17:18.020]  foreign and domestic policy.
[01:17:18.020 --> 01:17:25.020]  It was an American coup.
[01:17:25.020 --> 01:17:28.020]  It has been eight years since the attacks and there are hundreds of unanswered
[01:17:28.020 --> 01:17:29.020]  questions.
[01:17:29.020 --> 01:17:33.020]  Come down to Brave New Books on Wednesday, October 7th at 7 p.m. for the premiere
[01:17:33.020 --> 01:17:37.020]  of the new Loose Change called Loose Change, an American Coup.
[01:17:37.020 --> 01:17:39.020]  This is a powerful film.
[01:17:39.020 --> 01:17:42.020]  If you think you've seen it all before, you haven't.
[01:17:42.020 --> 01:17:46.020]  An American Coup is the quintessential 9-11 truth film today.
[01:17:46.020 --> 01:17:49.020]  The screening starts at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, October 7th at Brave New Books
[01:17:49.020 --> 01:17:51.020]  at 1904 Guadalupe.
[01:17:51.020 --> 01:17:57.020]  For any questions, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us on the web at
[01:17:57.020 --> 01:18:00.020]  bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:18:00.020 --> 01:18:29.020]  MUSIC
[01:18:29.020 --> 01:18:32.020]  Okay, we're not going to be fooled by these same tricks again.
[01:18:32.020 --> 01:18:39.020]  This is fraud on an astronomical scale such that this country has never seen.
[01:18:39.020 --> 01:18:43.020]  Eddie, Randy, y'all had some comments on the break.
[01:18:43.020 --> 01:18:44.020]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[01:18:44.020 --> 01:18:48.020]  Randy was talking about where he was trying to get to and what I was saying was
[01:18:48.020 --> 01:18:52.020]  that the powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the people
[01:18:52.020 --> 01:18:54.020]  and to the states.
[01:18:54.020 --> 01:18:58.020]  The state court would have jurisdiction to hear this in the instant case under
[01:18:58.020 --> 01:19:02.020]  those circumstances, but the fact of the matter is the court gains its
[01:19:02.020 --> 01:19:04.020]  jurisdiction because of two things.
[01:19:04.020 --> 01:19:10.020]  If he is ineligible, as most of us believe he is completely ineligible, then
[01:19:10.020 --> 01:19:15.020]  the man has committed a massive fraud, which is both a tortable offense and a
[01:19:15.020 --> 01:19:20.020]  criminal offense, which means he can be attacked on both fronts and removed to
[01:19:20.020 --> 01:19:23.020]  prison on all those grounds.
[01:19:23.020 --> 01:19:25.020]  That's precisely where I was going.
[01:19:25.020 --> 01:19:30.020]  It felt like they were making the wrong argument from the start in order to
[01:19:30.020 --> 01:19:35.020]  ensure that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:19:35.020 --> 01:19:43.020]  They should have made the allegation of fraud as a criminal allegation.
[01:19:43.020 --> 01:19:47.020]  Well, now, in all fairness, the federal court would also have jurisdiction on
[01:19:47.020 --> 01:19:51.020]  the constitutional argument issue, which is the one they're using, but the
[01:19:51.020 --> 01:19:54.020]  federal court has jurisdiction under the federal constitutional arguments that
[01:19:54.020 --> 01:19:56.020]  they're using anyway.
[01:19:56.020 --> 01:20:01.020]  He bumped right up into the problem with the constitutional argument.
[01:20:01.020 --> 01:20:06.020]  Before you can raise, and this is what the courts have said, before you can
[01:20:06.020 --> 01:20:11.020]  raise a constitutional issue, you have to show harm.
[01:20:11.020 --> 01:20:13.020]  Yeah, but that's what this case is about.
[01:20:13.020 --> 01:20:15.020]  We as citizens...
[01:20:15.020 --> 01:20:17.020]  We've got a multi-trillion dollar harm.
[01:20:17.020 --> 01:20:31.020]  Hey, listen, as a citizen, I am being harmed if this person, this man, has
[01:20:31.020 --> 01:20:37.020]  seized control, coup d'etat, of the federal government.
[01:20:37.020 --> 01:20:45.020]  I'm sorry, that's a harm, because he was not properly elected.
[01:20:45.020 --> 01:20:48.020]  And it also goes to election fraud, too.
[01:20:48.020 --> 01:20:52.020]  This is not general I don't like it harm.
[01:20:52.020 --> 01:20:54.020]  This is common law harm.
[01:20:54.020 --> 01:20:58.020]  Right, so let's look at it from a common law standpoint.
[01:20:58.020 --> 01:21:02.020]  The money that the federal government operates on comes from who?
[01:21:02.020 --> 01:21:04.020]  The courts have handled that.
[01:21:04.020 --> 01:21:05.020]  You can't complain.
[01:21:05.020 --> 01:21:07.020]  Just follow through with us.
[01:21:07.020 --> 01:21:09.020]  Who does it come from?
[01:21:09.020 --> 01:21:11.020]  The public in general.
[01:21:11.020 --> 01:21:13.020]  Okay, it comes from the public in general.
[01:21:13.020 --> 01:21:19.020]  The money is allocated by the Constitution to specific purposes for the
[01:21:19.020 --> 01:21:21.020]  purpose of government.
[01:21:21.020 --> 01:21:24.020]  It's not allowed to be spent just any way they want.
[01:21:24.020 --> 01:21:27.020]  It has to be spent by one of the enumerated authorities within the
[01:21:27.020 --> 01:21:28.020]  Constitution.
[01:21:28.020 --> 01:21:32.020]  If they spend the money outside of that authority, they're misusing public
[01:21:32.020 --> 01:21:33.020]  funds.
[01:21:33.020 --> 01:21:34.020]  Okay?
[01:21:34.020 --> 01:21:40.020]  Now, this man has taken public funds as a man not eligible to have access to
[01:21:40.020 --> 01:21:45.020]  those funds and has granted them to private businesses completely outside of
[01:21:45.020 --> 01:21:49.020]  all constitutional authority and all presidential authority.
[01:21:49.020 --> 01:21:50.020]  Oh, yes, he has.
[01:21:50.020 --> 01:21:51.020]  He didn't.
[01:21:51.020 --> 01:21:53.020]  The Congress did.
[01:21:53.020 --> 01:21:54.020]  He's not the Congress.
[01:21:54.020 --> 01:21:57.020]  He don't pass bills.
[01:21:57.020 --> 01:21:59.020]  He either signs or retos.
[01:21:59.020 --> 01:22:00.020]  That's right.
[01:22:00.020 --> 01:22:02.020]  And who wrote the bills that went in there?
[01:22:02.020 --> 01:22:04.020]  But you see, that's the problem.
[01:22:04.020 --> 01:22:08.020]  You're trying to claim a general harm, and the courts have said you can't
[01:22:08.020 --> 01:22:09.020]  claim a general harm.
[01:22:09.020 --> 01:22:13.020]  But here is the other thing, though, guys.
[01:22:13.020 --> 01:22:20.020]  He has made hundreds of appointments that affect all of us, and also he's the
[01:22:20.020 --> 01:22:22.020]  executor of the laws.
[01:22:22.020 --> 01:22:33.020]  So even if the Congress passed the laws, he's still the one who is executing
[01:22:33.020 --> 01:22:35.020]  and enforcing those laws.
[01:22:35.020 --> 01:22:41.020]  And so that's why it's not general anymore, because if he wasn't executing
[01:22:41.020 --> 01:22:45.020]  and enforcing the laws, then they would just be sitting on the books.
[01:22:45.020 --> 01:22:46.020]  So what?
[01:22:46.020 --> 01:22:47.020]  They would be meaningless.
[01:22:47.020 --> 01:22:54.020]  How are you personally and individually harmed in a way that is specifically
[01:22:54.020 --> 01:22:56.020]  articulatable personally?
[01:22:56.020 --> 01:22:57.020]  Okay, here's how...
[01:22:57.020 --> 01:23:00.020]  It's not a general vague, I don't like this.
[01:23:00.020 --> 01:23:07.020]  Okay, here's how I was personally harmed by this, okay?
[01:23:07.020 --> 01:23:11.020]  And it has to do with the election, all right?
[01:23:11.020 --> 01:23:18.020]  Because if this man was never allowed to run for office to begin with, I know
[01:23:18.020 --> 01:23:23.020]  for a fact, and I could even subpoena some of my friends to the witness stand,
[01:23:23.020 --> 01:23:28.020]  that they would have voted for Ron Paul if Obama hadn't been running.
[01:23:28.020 --> 01:23:33.020]  And so I can at least prove in my own inner circle that there would have been
[01:23:33.020 --> 01:23:38.020]  a much better chance of the man that I believe should have been president if
[01:23:38.020 --> 01:23:45.020]  this fraudster had never been allowed to enter the election to begin with.
[01:23:45.020 --> 01:23:52.020]  Okay, so that's how I was personally harmed.
[01:23:52.020 --> 01:23:56.020]  Okay, the arguments to show harm are more specific.
[01:23:56.020 --> 01:23:58.020]  Okay, fine.
[01:23:58.020 --> 01:24:03.020]  And that's why I'm saying, do we have to go to the right place to get past all
[01:24:03.020 --> 01:24:04.020]  of that?
[01:24:04.020 --> 01:24:05.020]  But see, I don't know.
[01:24:05.020 --> 01:24:08.020]  I mean, I guess I haven't studied the case enough to know what exactly...
[01:24:08.020 --> 01:24:11.020]  That was the exact problem they ran into.
[01:24:11.020 --> 01:24:16.020]  But see, what that would mean in this case, Randy, if that view by the court is
[01:24:16.020 --> 01:24:20.020]  allowed to stand, which by the way, I completely disagree with, in every way,
[01:24:20.020 --> 01:24:26.020]  shape, and form, simply because you are talking about a position that every act
[01:24:26.020 --> 01:24:31.020]  it commits can be the basis of a general harm.
[01:24:31.020 --> 01:24:33.020]  It can be the basis of a specific harm.
[01:24:33.020 --> 01:24:36.020]  It can be used in any method whatsoever.
[01:24:36.020 --> 01:24:42.020]  As long as the standard of proof is it can't be anything other than specifically
[01:24:42.020 --> 01:24:46.020]  directed, then there's no way to go after him in that regard.
[01:24:46.020 --> 01:24:51.020]  And here's what the courts have said, you can't come in and argue about a law
[01:24:51.020 --> 01:24:54.020]  because you don't like it and you think it might cause some harm.
[01:24:54.020 --> 01:25:00.020]  Okay, so, Randy, are you saying that we are not individually, personally harmed
[01:25:00.020 --> 01:25:05.020]  by a fraudster hijacking the presidency?
[01:25:05.020 --> 01:25:07.020]  That's not an individual harm?
[01:25:07.020 --> 01:25:09.020]  That's what the courts have said.
[01:25:09.020 --> 01:25:10.020]  How is it that...
[01:25:10.020 --> 01:25:11.020]  The courts are morons.
[01:25:11.020 --> 01:25:12.020]  We already know that.
[01:25:12.020 --> 01:25:13.020]  Wait a minute.
[01:25:13.020 --> 01:25:14.020]  It doesn't matter.
[01:25:14.020 --> 01:25:15.020]  We know the courts are morons.
[01:25:15.020 --> 01:25:19.020]  They say, well, I don't like the way you're doing things, so I'm going to try to
[01:25:19.020 --> 01:25:20.020]  force you to do things.
[01:25:20.020 --> 01:25:22.020]  Randy, back up.
[01:25:22.020 --> 01:25:24.020]  This has never happened.
[01:25:24.020 --> 01:25:30.020]  The courts have never ruled that somebody hijacking the presidency does not
[01:25:30.020 --> 01:25:32.020]  inflict personal harm.
[01:25:32.020 --> 01:25:33.020]  I'm sorry.
[01:25:33.020 --> 01:25:35.020]  There's never been a case that says that.
[01:25:35.020 --> 01:25:36.020]  Right.
[01:25:36.020 --> 01:25:37.020]  That's what I'm saying.
[01:25:37.020 --> 01:25:40.020]  Everything we're dealing with right here is new ground.
[01:25:40.020 --> 01:25:42.020]  There's no case law for this.
[01:25:42.020 --> 01:25:44.020]  There's no frame of reference for this.
[01:25:44.020 --> 01:25:47.020]  This has never occurred before, at least that we're aware of.
[01:25:47.020 --> 01:25:54.020]  Then why would we open up this gigantic hole for all of our arguments to fall into?
[01:25:54.020 --> 01:25:59.020]  Why would they make an argument that's so easy to roll over with a steamroller?
[01:25:59.020 --> 01:26:00.020]  Well, let's put it this way.
[01:26:00.020 --> 01:26:08.020]  Instead of saying that Obama committed statutory fraud, that is a criminal act
[01:26:08.020 --> 01:26:15.020]  defined by the Title 18 of the United States Code, and whether you think he
[01:26:15.020 --> 01:26:23.020]  committed fraud or not, the courts have absolutely statutory subject matter
[01:26:23.020 --> 01:26:26.020]  jurisdiction, no question.
[01:26:26.020 --> 01:26:27.020]  Right.
[01:26:27.020 --> 01:26:31.020]  But then again, now you've got to show, according to the way you're arguing
[01:26:31.020 --> 01:26:36.020]  this, if it's general, you've got to show how the fraud harmed you.
[01:26:36.020 --> 01:26:40.020]  No, I don't, criminal.
[01:26:40.020 --> 01:26:42.020]  It's harm per se.
[01:26:42.020 --> 01:26:44.020]  Yeah, from the criminal side.
[01:26:44.020 --> 01:26:48.020]  That's the way they should have went at it.
[01:26:48.020 --> 01:26:55.020]  There's no constitutional, I mean, there's no jurisdictional problem here.
[01:26:55.020 --> 01:27:00.020]  Nobody's going to say that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for
[01:27:00.020 --> 01:27:02.020]  crimes he committed.
[01:27:02.020 --> 01:27:03.020]  Why not?
[01:27:03.020 --> 01:27:04.020]  They did it for Bush.
[01:27:04.020 --> 01:27:06.020]  They didn't say he was immune.
[01:27:06.020 --> 01:27:08.020]  They're saying certain things.
[01:27:08.020 --> 01:27:10.020]  I don't see no indictments for these idiots.
[01:27:10.020 --> 01:27:13.020]  That's because they're all on the same team.
[01:27:13.020 --> 01:27:14.020]  Exactly.
[01:27:14.020 --> 01:27:16.020]  You can't change the court.
[01:27:16.020 --> 01:27:21.020]  Yeah, but you're saying don't invoke proper law because somebody may not
[01:27:21.020 --> 01:27:23.020]  properly invoke proper law.
[01:27:23.020 --> 01:27:27.020]  No, I'm saying what I usually say, get more rope and more trends.
[01:27:27.020 --> 01:27:33.020]  I'm surprised they didn't back up and say, okay, if I make this argument,
[01:27:33.020 --> 01:27:36.020]  how are these guys going to argue against me?
[01:27:36.020 --> 01:27:40.020]  Don't these guys play chess?
[01:27:40.020 --> 01:27:47.020]  If I make a criminal allegation against the president, the federal courts have
[01:27:47.020 --> 01:27:48.020]  jurisdiction.
[01:27:48.020 --> 01:27:54.020]  Randy, I think that they are making some criminal allegations here.
[01:27:54.020 --> 01:27:56.020]  That I didn't hear.
[01:27:56.020 --> 01:28:02.020]  The court said that the citizen doesn't have standing to raise a
[01:28:02.020 --> 01:28:03.020]  constitutional issue.
[01:28:03.020 --> 01:28:09.020]  What they didn't say was unless the individual has been personally
[01:28:09.020 --> 01:28:11.020]  individually harmed.
[01:28:11.020 --> 01:28:14.020]  Generally, he doesn't have a claim.
[01:28:14.020 --> 01:28:21.020]  If they had made a criminal accusation, this thing of the court standing to
[01:28:21.020 --> 01:28:23.020]  adjudicate the issue would never have come up.
[01:28:23.020 --> 01:28:24.020]  No, no, no, no.
[01:28:24.020 --> 01:28:25.020]  Wait, Randy.
[01:28:25.020 --> 01:28:26.020]  Hold on.
[01:28:26.020 --> 01:28:27.020]  Okay.
[01:28:27.020 --> 01:28:31.020]  See, this is such a complex case, and there's a lot of stuff involved here.
[01:28:31.020 --> 01:28:37.020]  I am relatively certain that there were criminal allegations involved in this
[01:28:37.020 --> 01:28:43.020]  civil case, even if they didn't file criminal accused, like in the criminal
[01:28:43.020 --> 01:28:47.020]  court, even if they didn't go to the attorney general to file criminal
[01:28:47.020 --> 01:28:50.020]  charges to a grand jury.
[01:28:50.020 --> 01:28:54.020]  I do remember that they were discussing this on Gary's show.
[01:28:54.020 --> 01:28:58.020]  In fact, let's bring up Gary right now because Gary interviewed this man the
[01:28:58.020 --> 01:28:59.020]  other night.
[01:28:59.020 --> 01:29:01.020]  Thanks for joining us tonight.
[01:29:01.020 --> 01:29:02.020]  Hello.
[01:29:02.020 --> 01:29:03.020]  Hey.
[01:29:03.020 --> 01:29:04.020]  Okay.
[01:29:04.020 --> 01:29:10.020]  First of all, about this question about harm, the court, at least one court
[01:29:10.020 --> 01:29:17.020]  case has ruled that candidates can claim that they were harmed.
[01:29:17.020 --> 01:29:25.020]  And so this is why Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake are in on the case because they
[01:29:25.020 --> 01:29:27.020]  were candidates for president and vice president.
[01:29:27.020 --> 01:29:32.020]  So whether or not it makes sense, there are a lot of lawsuits filed in which
[01:29:32.020 --> 01:29:38.020]  they were thrown out because of lack of standing until there was some case, I
[01:29:38.020 --> 01:29:44.020]  think it was challenging John McCain, and the court said, well, it was the
[01:29:44.020 --> 01:29:49.020]  candidate challenging it, but it was thrown out for other reasons, but the
[01:29:49.020 --> 01:29:54.020]  standing issue held up because they said, if you're a candidate, you were
[01:29:54.020 --> 01:29:57.020]  harmed because it reduced your chances of winning.
[01:29:57.020 --> 01:30:01.020]  Also, I think there have been candidate challenges involving presidential
[01:30:01.020 --> 01:30:02.020]  elections.
[01:30:02.020 --> 01:30:03.020]  Excellent.
[01:30:03.020 --> 01:30:08.020]  That's exactly the kind of articulatable harm that the courts have said you
[01:30:08.020 --> 01:30:09.020]  had to have.
[01:30:09.020 --> 01:30:10.020]  Yes.
[01:30:10.020 --> 01:30:11.020]  Say that again, Gary.
[01:30:11.020 --> 01:30:16.020]  Well, a candidate can file these kinds of lawsuits because the candidate can
[01:30:16.020 --> 01:30:24.020]  say that the candidate was harmed, and there have been, I guess, I don't think
[01:30:24.020 --> 01:30:28.020]  it's just the presidential race where this has come up before, but there was
[01:30:28.020 --> 01:30:34.020]  a case called Hollander, or Hollander or something like that, that they're
[01:30:34.020 --> 01:30:39.020]  relying on, and that's why they brought in Alan Keyes, who was the presidential
[01:30:39.020 --> 01:30:45.020]  candidate of the American Independent Party as a plaintiff, and Wiley Drake,
[01:30:45.020 --> 01:30:47.020]  who was the vice presidential candidate.
[01:30:47.020 --> 01:30:53.020]  Yes, and that jives with what, Randy, remember what we were discussing with
[01:30:53.020 --> 01:31:00.020]  Tony Davis and his attorney friend back a few months ago before the election
[01:31:00.020 --> 01:31:10.020]  when it came out that the Democratic convention wasn't held in time in order
[01:31:10.020 --> 01:31:17.020]  for them to submit their nominee to be on the ballot in the state of Texas.
[01:31:17.020 --> 01:31:25.020]  I mean, Obama never should, the Democratic Party illegally put their
[01:31:25.020 --> 01:31:27.020]  candidate on the ballot.
[01:31:27.020 --> 01:31:31.020]  Actually, it was the secretary of state that committed the crime, okay, because
[01:31:31.020 --> 01:31:36.020]  the Democratic National Convention was not held, it wasn't completed in enough
[01:31:36.020 --> 01:31:43.020]  time in order for them to be able to name their nominee in advance far enough
[01:31:43.020 --> 01:31:48.020]  to be submitted to the secretary of state to be placed on the ballot.
[01:31:48.020 --> 01:31:52.020]  And so when we were discussing this with Tony Davis and his attorney friend,
[01:31:52.020 --> 01:31:56.020]  he said that we as citizens, and it would be difficult to argue the standing
[01:31:56.020 --> 01:32:02.020]  issue, that it would have to be one of the other candidates that were running
[01:32:02.020 --> 01:32:07.020]  against whoever the Democratic nominee would be.
[01:32:07.020 --> 01:32:14.020]  To get to this question of why can a court hear this, in some of these cases,
[01:32:14.020 --> 01:32:22.020]  and I think Gary Greene referred to this, they would sue the election officials,
[01:32:22.020 --> 01:32:24.020]  like the secretary of state.
[01:32:24.020 --> 01:32:29.020]  In the case in California, I think he was talking about they were suing Deborah
[01:32:29.020 --> 01:32:34.020]  Bowen, I think the case was about Keyes versus Bowen, because they said that
[01:32:34.020 --> 01:32:40.020]  she should have checked to see if he was eligible, like did he meet the age
[01:32:40.020 --> 01:32:44.020]  requirement, was he a natural born citizen, you know, that sort of thing.
[01:32:44.020 --> 01:32:47.020]  He referred to the Eldridge Cleaver case where Eldridge Cleaver was not old
[01:32:47.020 --> 01:32:49.020]  enough to run for president.
[01:32:49.020 --> 01:32:55.020]  He says that California kept Eldridge Cleaver off the ballot in 1968, so why
[01:32:55.020 --> 01:33:01.020]  didn't they check to see if John McCain, if Barack Obama is eligible before
[01:33:01.020 --> 01:33:04.020]  putting their names on the ballot.
[01:33:04.020 --> 01:33:09.020]  And I guess this kind of comes down to the question, who has to prove what?
[01:33:09.020 --> 01:33:17.020]  Do the plaintiffs have to prove that Barack Obama is ineligible, or does the
[01:33:17.020 --> 01:33:21.020]  candidate have to prove that he is eligible before his name is put on the
[01:33:21.020 --> 01:33:27.020]  ballot?
[01:33:27.020 --> 01:33:30.020]  Now, according to the information and what I've seen in the state election
[01:33:30.020 --> 01:33:35.020]  laws, the secretary of the state of each state whose responsibility it is to
[01:33:35.020 --> 01:33:41.020]  ensure that all candidates for the office meet the requirements, both state
[01:33:41.020 --> 01:33:44.020]  and federal, before they're allowed to be placed on the ballot.
[01:33:44.020 --> 01:33:50.020]  Now, that was the argument in Chicago in one of the original cases, and the
[01:33:50.020 --> 01:33:56.020]  secretary of state did nothing to fact find the eligibility of Obama to be on
[01:33:56.020 --> 01:33:57.020]  the ballot.
[01:33:57.020 --> 01:34:02.020]  Yeah, and this is just in one particular state, so now it comes down to each
[01:34:02.020 --> 01:34:09.020]  individual state, the secretary of state of each state, is left holding the
[01:34:09.020 --> 01:34:14.020]  bag that they're the ones that should have chased this down.
[01:34:14.020 --> 01:34:19.020]  Yes, and I raised this issue in the secretary of state before a district
[01:34:19.020 --> 01:34:23.020]  court, and he threw me out in the street.
[01:34:23.020 --> 01:34:28.020]  Well, see, the thing is, it's not enough to just try to go after all the
[01:34:28.020 --> 01:34:31.020]  secretary of states of all these states.
[01:34:31.020 --> 01:34:36.020]  This fraudster still has to be removed from the White House.
[01:34:36.020 --> 01:34:42.020]  Somebody's got to go take him out if it can be proven that he is not eligible
[01:34:42.020 --> 01:34:43.020]  to be president.
[01:34:43.020 --> 01:34:44.020]  Now, who's going to do that?
[01:34:44.020 --> 01:34:49.020]  The U.S. Marshals, the FBI, I mean, the military?
[01:34:49.020 --> 01:34:51.020]  I guess it would be the U.S. Marshals.
[01:34:51.020 --> 01:34:52.020]  It would be the court.
[01:34:52.020 --> 01:34:54.020]  Yes, it should be up to them.
[01:34:54.020 --> 01:34:56.020]  It would be the court enforcing it.
[01:34:56.020 --> 01:34:57.020]  It has to be.
[01:34:57.020 --> 01:35:00.020]  There's no other, nothing else makes sense.
[01:35:00.020 --> 01:35:04.020]  Now, what I would love to hear about at the White House, not really, but of
[01:35:04.020 --> 01:35:07.020]  course, would be the U.S. Marshals and the Secret Service having to shoot out
[01:35:07.020 --> 01:35:13.020]  over who gets to take custody of him.
[01:35:13.020 --> 01:35:15.020]  The Secret Service, it's not up to them.
[01:35:15.020 --> 01:35:21.020]  The Secret Service is a private firm hired to protect the president.
[01:35:21.020 --> 01:35:23.020]  They don't have any jurisdiction.
[01:35:23.020 --> 01:35:26.020]  They don't have any authority.
[01:35:26.020 --> 01:35:28.020]  Since when has that stopped them?
[01:35:28.020 --> 01:35:36.020]  Well, like you said, it could come to blows.
[01:35:36.020 --> 01:35:40.020]  I want to raise a couple of points here.
[01:35:40.020 --> 01:35:46.020]  One is you were talking earlier about how do the courts rule on this at all?
[01:35:46.020 --> 01:35:52.020]  And it seems to me I hear all the time where there are ballot propositions that
[01:35:52.020 --> 01:35:57.020]  are voted on, especially in California, and then later the courts ruled that
[01:35:57.020 --> 01:36:01.020]  they were invalid, they were unconstitutional, and it doesn't matter
[01:36:01.020 --> 01:36:03.020]  what the voters decided.
[01:36:03.020 --> 01:36:06.020]  And courts are always, I don't want to say always, but frequently
[01:36:06.020 --> 01:36:09.020]  overruling election decisions.
[01:36:09.020 --> 01:36:16.020]  We may not like it, but it certainly does happen.
[01:36:16.020 --> 01:36:20.020]  How does that translate from, say, California law or state law to federal law?
[01:36:20.020 --> 01:36:24.020]  Well, I mean, if it's something unconstitutional, a man is elected and
[01:36:24.020 --> 01:36:27.020]  he's not constitutionally qualified.
[01:36:27.020 --> 01:36:29.020]  That was the real question.
[01:36:29.020 --> 01:36:31.020]  Where specifically is that authority?
[01:36:31.020 --> 01:36:39.020]  How do we legally find it so that we show that the court has subject matter
[01:36:39.020 --> 01:36:40.020]  jurisdiction?
[01:36:40.020 --> 01:36:44.020]  That's why I was saying if we make a criminal accusation against the
[01:36:44.020 --> 01:36:55.020]  candidate, the question of jurisdiction simply does not arise.
[01:36:55.020 --> 01:37:06.020]  I believe that there are criminal accusations in their civil arguments.
[01:37:06.020 --> 01:37:10.020]  I mean, I don't think that they have filed, tried to file charges with the
[01:37:10.020 --> 01:37:17.020]  attorney general, like I said, but I know for sure they're accusing him of fraud.
[01:37:17.020 --> 01:37:23.020]  If we had Gary Creep on, I'm sure he could tell us very quickly why they
[01:37:23.020 --> 01:37:25.020]  took the tact that they took.
[01:37:25.020 --> 01:37:31.020]  I'm absolutely not second-guessing him, because the guy was pretty sharp,
[01:37:31.020 --> 01:37:35.020]  and I'm sure he had good reasons for everything he did.
[01:37:35.020 --> 01:37:38.020]  I do want to disagree with Gary Creep on one thing.
[01:37:38.020 --> 01:37:45.020]  He said that he did not take cases like this, actually as John McCain came,
[01:37:45.020 --> 01:37:50.020]  before the election, because he said it would be premature.
[01:37:50.020 --> 01:37:54.020]  I don't really see what difference it would make where you wait until after
[01:37:54.020 --> 01:37:56.020]  the election or before the election.
[01:37:56.020 --> 01:38:00.020]  I personally think that these cases should have been handled before the
[01:38:00.020 --> 01:38:07.020]  election, because if John McCain or Barack Obama had been ruled ineligible,
[01:38:07.020 --> 01:38:11.020]  that would have been bad luck for the candidate, but it would not have been a
[01:38:11.020 --> 01:38:15.020]  constitutional crisis for the country later.
[01:38:15.020 --> 01:38:19.020]  They'd still be senators or whatever, but right now we have a situation where
[01:38:19.020 --> 01:38:24.020]  someone is serving as president, and if he is ineligible, it's going to be an
[01:38:24.020 --> 01:38:26.020]  awkward situation.
[01:38:26.020 --> 01:38:33.020]  Yes, but what he may have been speaking to is the existing body of law, that
[01:38:33.020 --> 01:38:35.020]  it wasn't ripe yet.
[01:38:35.020 --> 01:38:37.020]  No one had claimed harm.
[01:38:37.020 --> 01:38:45.020]  I would suspect that if someone doesn't meet the statutory requirements, and
[01:38:45.020 --> 01:38:53.020]  if a candidate, if a valid candidate or a candidate who has filed all the
[01:38:53.020 --> 01:39:02.020]  necessary papers becomes essentially a public official at that point, then he
[01:39:02.020 --> 01:39:04.020]  should be challengeable at that point.
[01:39:04.020 --> 01:39:10.020]  Okay, I want to, I think I have an answer for Gary's question, what Gary just
[01:39:10.020 --> 01:39:15.020]  addressed, because they're going straight to Constitution.
[01:39:15.020 --> 01:39:20.020]  The Constitution doesn't say that a person has to meet these requirements in
[01:39:20.020 --> 01:39:23.020]  order to run for president.
[01:39:23.020 --> 01:39:28.020]  It says that they have to meet these certain requirements in order to be
[01:39:28.020 --> 01:39:30.020]  president.
[01:39:30.020 --> 01:39:35.020]  All right, and so that's always been the problem that, so what, you've got to
[01:39:35.020 --> 01:39:41.020]  wait until they actually take office in order to invoke that section of the
[01:39:41.020 --> 01:39:47.020]  Constitution, because it doesn't say that they can't run for president, it
[01:39:47.020 --> 01:39:49.020]  just says that they can't be president.
[01:39:49.020 --> 01:39:53.020]  That's exactly what Gary Creep said, that was precise.
[01:39:53.020 --> 01:39:58.020]  The state law can prevent you from being on the ballot, but you're right.
[01:39:58.020 --> 01:40:03.020]  The Constitution just lists the qualifications for president.
[01:40:03.020 --> 01:40:08.020]  So again, it goes back to the states.
[01:40:08.020 --> 01:40:12.020]  And I want to point out one other case that I haven't heard anyone talk about,
[01:40:12.020 --> 01:40:17.020]  and that is that one of the earliest lawsuits was filed not only challenging
[01:40:17.020 --> 01:40:23.020]  John McCain and Barack Obama, but also the Socialist Workers Party candidate,
[01:40:23.020 --> 01:40:27.020]  whose name I forget, who was clearly unqualified.
[01:40:27.020 --> 01:40:33.020]  He was a citizen of Nicaragua, he was born in Nicaragua, he was not a U.S.
[01:40:33.020 --> 01:40:34.020]  citizen.
[01:40:34.020 --> 01:40:40.020]  And he actually was kept off the ballot in six states because the state
[01:40:40.020 --> 01:40:42.020]  officials said you're just not qualified.
[01:40:42.020 --> 01:40:46.020]  So there is, and there are precedents where candidates are kept off the
[01:40:46.020 --> 01:40:49.020]  ballot because they don't meet their qualifications, because the state will
[01:40:49.020 --> 01:40:54.020]  check your qualifications before they put you on the ballot.
[01:40:54.020 --> 01:40:55.020]  So why wasn't this done?
[01:40:55.020 --> 01:41:01.020]  Why weren't John McCain and Barack Obama vetted in 2008?
[01:41:01.020 --> 01:41:03.020]  And what's the ramification?
[01:41:03.020 --> 01:41:09.020]  If the state doesn't keep you off the ballot, will they waive their right to
[01:41:09.020 --> 01:41:11.020]  make the challenge afterwards?
[01:41:11.020 --> 01:41:17.020]  The states may not have laws in place that require them to produce proof,
[01:41:17.020 --> 01:41:21.020]  like their birth certificate and these sorts of things.
[01:41:21.020 --> 01:41:28.020]  In Illinois they did, and the person in charge of the voting checks and
[01:41:28.020 --> 01:41:33.020]  balances there at the time refused to make the requirement that the law
[01:41:33.020 --> 01:41:34.020]  required.
[01:41:34.020 --> 01:41:39.020]  That is misconduct, that is malfeasance in office, that is any other type of
[01:41:39.020 --> 01:41:42.020]  criminal act you would care to mention for a government official in that
[01:41:42.020 --> 01:41:43.020]  regard.
[01:41:43.020 --> 01:41:47.020]  They had a duty to perform an act to ensure that the candidate was
[01:41:47.020 --> 01:41:48.020]  qualified.
[01:41:48.020 --> 01:41:53.020]  They failed utterly to perform the act for which they had a duty.
[01:41:53.020 --> 01:42:00.020]  In that position, that's criminal.
[01:42:00.020 --> 01:42:06.020]  Well, I was thinking, you know, if for any reason what they're doing fails in
[01:42:06.020 --> 01:42:13.020]  this regard, there may still be a secondary way to go about this.
[01:42:13.020 --> 01:42:18.020]  For instance, go against the state of Texas here saying, hey, this guy
[01:42:18.020 --> 01:42:24.020]  didn't qualify to be on the ballot, therefore he cannot receive any
[01:42:24.020 --> 01:42:27.020]  electoral votes from the state of Texas.
[01:42:27.020 --> 01:42:31.020]  Well, yeah, he wasn't qualified to be on the ballot from way back just
[01:42:31.020 --> 01:42:35.020]  simply because the Democratic Party didn't have their convention in time to
[01:42:35.020 --> 01:42:40.020]  submit their nominee to the Secretary of State in order to get on the
[01:42:40.020 --> 01:42:41.020]  ballot.
[01:42:41.020 --> 01:42:46.020]  You don't even need to go to the eligibility issue for that.
[01:42:46.020 --> 01:42:49.020]  Well, if you want to take that tack, though, you can go after general
[01:42:49.020 --> 01:42:50.020]  conspiracy.
[01:42:50.020 --> 01:42:55.020]  Everybody assisted him in aiding and abetting and committing felonies on a
[01:42:55.020 --> 01:42:56.020]  large scale.
[01:42:56.020 --> 01:43:00.020]  There's no requirement that they know that he intends to commit a felony,
[01:43:00.020 --> 01:43:03.020]  just that they aided him in doing it and conspired to help him.
[01:43:03.020 --> 01:43:08.020]  But if we can just get his electoral votes from Texas, Paul, he's history.
[01:43:08.020 --> 01:43:12.020]  Yeah, well, that's what I was trying to go for way back in the day, but I
[01:43:12.020 --> 01:43:14.020]  didn't have standing.
[01:43:14.020 --> 01:43:21.020]  And the Libertarian candidate tried to file a lawsuit, but his cause of
[01:43:21.020 --> 01:43:25.020]  action was ridiculous.
[01:43:25.020 --> 01:43:29.020]  Yeah, I was standing in front of the district judge until he threw me out in
[01:43:29.020 --> 01:43:31.020]  the street.
[01:43:31.020 --> 01:43:33.020]  It was like a dog and pony show.
[01:43:33.020 --> 01:43:39.020]  It was like he was just filing a lawsuit just to put on a show because it was
[01:43:39.020 --> 01:43:41.020]  practically a frivolous lawsuit.
[01:43:41.020 --> 01:43:44.020]  His argument was unfounded.
[01:43:44.020 --> 01:43:51.020]  I mean, it wasn't going anywhere.
[01:43:51.020 --> 01:43:56.020]  Maybe we need to look in the states for individual actions.
[01:43:56.020 --> 01:43:57.020]  Yes, okay.
[01:43:57.020 --> 01:44:03.020]  So we can look in the states for individual actions, but to put together
[01:44:03.020 --> 01:44:04.020]  what?
[01:44:04.020 --> 01:44:06.020]  What is the ultimate goal?
[01:44:06.020 --> 01:44:09.020]  If he's not eligible, he needs to be removed.
[01:44:09.020 --> 01:44:11.020]  Who's going to remove him?
[01:44:11.020 --> 01:44:12.020]  The U.S. Marshals.
[01:44:12.020 --> 01:44:15.020]  It's still going to have to go into federal court somehow.
[01:44:15.020 --> 01:44:20.020]  We're going to have to show some kind of conspiracy, maybe a RICO case.
[01:44:20.020 --> 01:44:22.020]  I want to point out a couple things.
[01:44:22.020 --> 01:44:27.020]  McCain carried Texas, so you may not take votes away from Obama if you
[01:44:27.020 --> 01:44:32.020]  challenge Texas.
[01:44:32.020 --> 01:44:36.020]  I want to point out that there was an interesting couple of cases that I
[01:44:36.020 --> 01:44:40.020]  don't know enough about in which a couple of people were elected to the
[01:44:40.020 --> 01:44:42.020]  U.S. Senate.
[01:44:42.020 --> 01:44:46.020]  It was later determined that they were ineligible, and I'm sorry, I don't
[01:44:46.020 --> 01:44:50.020]  know all the details, but one of them I believe was named James Shields, and
[01:44:50.020 --> 01:44:56.020]  it was declared that he wasn't born in the United States, and he was elected
[01:44:56.020 --> 01:45:01.020]  if I had the details here, and I'm looking at this stuff right now.
[01:45:01.020 --> 01:45:05.020]  And afterward it was determined that he had served for a while and that he
[01:45:05.020 --> 01:45:10.020]  had been ineligible, and so he was not removed.
[01:45:10.020 --> 01:45:18.020]  He was simply declared that he had not held the office.
[01:45:18.020 --> 01:45:20.020]  So that's how it works.
[01:45:20.020 --> 01:45:25.020]  They don't remove you.
[01:45:25.020 --> 01:45:29.020]  They just say you weren't there.
[01:45:29.020 --> 01:45:33.020]  Yeah, that's what we were saying, that Obama wouldn't be subject to
[01:45:33.020 --> 01:45:35.020]  impeachment.
[01:45:35.020 --> 01:45:39.020]  Yeah, and when I say remove, I don't mean remove from office.
[01:45:39.020 --> 01:45:44.020]  I mean go get him and drag him out of there.
[01:45:44.020 --> 01:45:47.020]  Throw him out the third-story window and see how far he bounces.
[01:45:47.020 --> 01:45:52.020]  I don't mean some kind of formal legal removal or impeachment.
[01:45:52.020 --> 01:45:56.020]  I mean go get his butt out of there physically.
[01:45:56.020 --> 01:45:57.020]  Well, he can't do anything.
[01:45:57.020 --> 01:46:02.020]  I mean, he can, I don't know, sign an executive order.
[01:46:02.020 --> 01:46:03.020]  It would be ignored.
[01:46:03.020 --> 01:46:09.020]  I mean, I guess he could physically, you know, squat in the White House.
[01:46:09.020 --> 01:46:14.020]  He could pardon himself.
[01:46:14.020 --> 01:46:20.020]  Yeah, but the thing is, look, this goes to checks and balances of the
[01:46:20.020 --> 01:46:24.020]  branches of our government, okay?
[01:46:24.020 --> 01:46:28.020]  The other branches of government have to have checks and balances over
[01:46:28.020 --> 01:46:37.020]  each other, and the judicial branch has to have the authority to make a
[01:46:37.020 --> 01:46:44.020]  ruling that this man has fraudulently taken the presidency and sent the
[01:46:44.020 --> 01:46:51.020]  U.S. Marshals, who are the enforcers of the courts, to go and take him
[01:46:51.020 --> 01:46:53.020]  out of there.
[01:46:53.020 --> 01:46:56.020]  That's really the only thing that's going to happen because the Congress
[01:46:56.020 --> 01:47:00.020]  doesn't have an enforcement agency like that.
[01:47:00.020 --> 01:47:01.020]  They make law.
[01:47:01.020 --> 01:47:05.020]  You know, the courts have enforcement.
[01:47:05.020 --> 01:47:09.020]  Okay, we're running out of time, and Eddie had an issue he wanted to
[01:47:09.020 --> 01:47:11.020]  address.
[01:47:11.020 --> 01:47:15.020]  Well, actually, I mean, it's just some information, but we're going to go
[01:47:15.020 --> 01:47:18.020]  over it at the seminar, or I can do it Friday.
[01:47:18.020 --> 01:47:21.020]  It's not a major deal if you want to take some people on the phone.
[01:47:21.020 --> 01:47:23.020]  Yeah, we have a couple of callers left.
[01:47:23.020 --> 01:47:26.020]  No, Gary, stay on the line.
[01:47:26.020 --> 01:47:27.020]  Stay on the line, Gary.
[01:47:27.020 --> 01:47:32.020]  We're going to go to Dan in Connecticut, and we've also got Jim in Texas.
[01:47:32.020 --> 01:47:35.020]  Okay, Dan, what are your thoughts?
[01:47:35.020 --> 01:47:38.020]  Well, I had two different hooks on this.
[01:47:38.020 --> 01:47:43.020]  You guys know what happened every time a soldier has raised the issue of
[01:47:43.020 --> 01:47:47.020]  whether he's commander in chief or not?
[01:47:47.020 --> 01:47:49.020]  It's been thrown out.
[01:47:49.020 --> 01:47:51.020]  Or they ran from it.
[01:47:51.020 --> 01:47:52.020]  Right.
[01:47:52.020 --> 01:47:53.020]  You're right.
[01:47:53.020 --> 01:47:58.020]  The military, for example, there was one case where somebody was going to
[01:47:58.020 --> 01:48:04.020]  send to Afghanistan, and the soldier challenged it, and then the military said,
[01:48:04.020 --> 01:48:07.020]  oh, you don't have to go to Afghanistan after all.
[01:48:07.020 --> 01:48:11.020]  Okay, I've got two quick thoughts speaking at T-Roy the caller.
[01:48:11.020 --> 01:48:16.020]  If you guys want the documents that I have, I did a Freedom of Information Act
[01:48:16.020 --> 01:48:19.020]  request with the Secretary of State for Texas.
[01:48:19.020 --> 01:48:24.020]  As far as McCain and Obama being eligible to be on the ballot, I have documents
[01:48:24.020 --> 01:48:28.020]  upstairs in my filing cabinet saying they both missed a deadline from the
[01:48:28.020 --> 01:48:32.020]  Secretary of State, so I can mail those to you if you want them.
[01:48:32.020 --> 01:48:37.020]  My final hook on this was, believe it or not, 18 U.S.C. Section 4,
[01:48:37.020 --> 01:48:39.020]  Mr. Prison of Felony.
[01:48:39.020 --> 01:48:40.020]  Yes.
[01:48:40.020 --> 01:48:44.020]  And I know people at the tea parties, they were a little leery on this because
[01:48:44.020 --> 01:48:48.020]  some of them were like, well, what Bush was doing about torture wasn't torture,
[01:48:48.020 --> 01:48:55.020]  and I basically said, look, if you want to go after this guy, I forget the
[01:48:55.020 --> 01:48:59.020]  exact statute, but the particular acts that are described that were committed
[01:48:59.020 --> 01:49:05.020]  under Bush that Obama had awareness of and direct knowledge of were torture,
[01:49:05.020 --> 01:49:08.020]  and that's a felony under U.S. Code.
[01:49:08.020 --> 01:49:11.020]  So let's just say we wanted to go that route.
[01:49:11.020 --> 01:49:13.020]  You could remove him that way.
[01:49:13.020 --> 01:49:18.020]  He is guilty of misprison of felonies, so is Eric Holder.
[01:49:18.020 --> 01:49:21.020]  Interesting.
[01:49:21.020 --> 01:49:25.020]  Would he be shielded under national security?
[01:49:25.020 --> 01:49:27.020]  Not at all.
[01:49:27.020 --> 01:49:32.020]  He actually came out and acknowledged it at several points during the campaign.
[01:49:32.020 --> 01:49:36.020]  He basically said, yeah, you know, this is reprehensible and, you know,
[01:49:36.020 --> 01:49:38.020]  stuff to that nature.
[01:49:38.020 --> 01:49:41.020]  All we would have to do is just, you know, pull the direct quotes from him
[01:49:41.020 --> 01:49:44.020]  in speech, and this was in mainstream media.
[01:49:44.020 --> 01:49:49.020]  He was right out there in the open, and he refused to go after it.
[01:49:49.020 --> 01:49:53.020]  Even while he was a senator and while he was president, he stalled on it,
[01:49:53.020 --> 01:49:55.020]  and he's still stalling on it.
[01:49:55.020 --> 01:49:57.020]  Yeah, that would be virtually true of all of them.
[01:49:57.020 --> 01:50:00.020]  I mean, take, for instance, what we do.
[01:50:00.020 --> 01:50:04.020]  The United States is still the only nation on the planet that uses depleted
[01:50:04.020 --> 01:50:06.020]  uranium munitions.
[01:50:06.020 --> 01:50:10.020]  They are outlawed under the Geneva Convention, completely, totally outlawed.
[01:50:10.020 --> 01:50:17.020]  They have been for decades, and yet we use them in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
[01:50:17.020 --> 01:50:19.020]  Yeah, and let me make a comment.
[01:50:19.020 --> 01:50:20.020]  This is just easier.
[01:50:20.020 --> 01:50:24.020]  Let me make a comment about this commander-in-chief thing, too.
[01:50:24.020 --> 01:50:28.020]  According to the Constitution, the president is only the commander-in-chief
[01:50:28.020 --> 01:50:33.020]  after Congress has declared war, and there's not even supposed to be a
[01:50:33.020 --> 01:50:38.020]  standing army at all unless Congress has declared war.
[01:50:38.020 --> 01:50:43.020]  And even then, the standing army can only exist for two years.
[01:50:43.020 --> 01:50:49.020]  So why in the heck have we had a standing army for decades and decades when
[01:50:49.020 --> 01:50:54.020]  Congress hasn't declared war since World War II, okay?
[01:50:54.020 --> 01:50:56.020]  So what is the deal?
[01:50:56.020 --> 01:51:00.020]  No, he's not commander-in-chief, and the standing army is illegitimate.
[01:51:00.020 --> 01:51:05.020]  Everything that's going on here is so far gone.
[01:51:05.020 --> 01:51:10.020]  I mean, no wonder we're in a constitutional crisis here.
[01:51:10.020 --> 01:51:16.020]  Well, now, as far as the standing army goes, I believe it stipulates no state
[01:51:16.020 --> 01:51:18.020]  shall have a standing army.
[01:51:18.020 --> 01:51:22.020]  In other words, no state can have its own military arm.
[01:51:22.020 --> 01:51:26.020]  As far as a national defense military, that can exist.
[01:51:26.020 --> 01:51:31.020]  But every state has the right to have one or more militia units within it.
[01:51:31.020 --> 01:51:34.020]  Yes, yes, it wasn't banning state militias.
[01:51:34.020 --> 01:51:39.020]  It was banning a federal national standing army.
[01:51:39.020 --> 01:51:42.020]  It didn't ban a Navy, okay?
[01:51:42.020 --> 01:51:45.020]  It didn't, but it did ban a standing army.
[01:51:45.020 --> 01:51:50.020]  It said that there can only be a national standing army if Congress declares war.
[01:51:50.020 --> 01:51:52.020]  Right, which would mean no individual state army.
[01:51:52.020 --> 01:51:54.020]  Right.
[01:51:54.020 --> 01:51:57.020]  All right, let's bring Jim into the conversation.
[01:51:57.020 --> 01:51:58.020]  Dan, Gary, stay there.
[01:51:58.020 --> 01:52:00.020]  Jim, what are your thoughts?
[01:52:00.020 --> 01:52:05.020]  Yeah, my thought was on this, an easy way around,
[01:52:05.020 --> 01:52:17.020]  if Barack took funds from the government for the election, you know, the matching funds,
[01:52:17.020 --> 01:52:23.020]  then that would be, if he's not a citizen, he would have committed a fraud right there,
[01:52:23.020 --> 01:52:31.020]  and that would be easy to prove by the application for the funds just through a FOIA.
[01:52:31.020 --> 01:52:36.020]  Yeah, well, that would already be available publicly in his campaign finance records.
[01:52:36.020 --> 01:52:37.020]  Right.
[01:52:37.020 --> 01:52:44.020]  So, I mean, that's something that's out there that we should be able to get to pretty easy,
[01:52:44.020 --> 01:52:50.020]  and I'm sure he'd have to have filled out paperwork and prove something to get the funds.
[01:52:50.020 --> 01:52:58.020]  And if not, if he's not, he committed fraud on the government right there before the election.
[01:52:58.020 --> 01:53:01.020]  I mean, and I don't know that he even took the funds.
[01:53:01.020 --> 01:53:03.020]  I don't.
[01:53:03.020 --> 01:53:05.020]  Some of them haven't been taking funds lately.
[01:53:05.020 --> 01:53:06.020]  Wait a minute.
[01:53:06.020 --> 01:53:11.020]  You're talking about a Democrat that had his chance to get his hands on free money and refuse?
[01:53:11.020 --> 01:53:15.020]  What planet are you on?
[01:53:15.020 --> 01:53:16.020]  Yeah, I understand.
[01:53:16.020 --> 01:53:23.020]  But, I mean, my whole thing is that there are so many frauds that would have been there,
[01:53:23.020 --> 01:53:29.020]  but if it's a criminal fraud and you're expecting the Justice Department to prosecute him, I think,
[01:53:29.020 --> 01:53:31.020]  I mean, those are the people he appointed.
[01:53:31.020 --> 01:53:40.020]  Yeah, but the thing is, it's not about the fraud because then that would potentially go to impeachment.
[01:53:40.020 --> 01:53:46.020]  He can't be impeached because he never took office.
[01:53:46.020 --> 01:53:47.020]  Well, no, I understand that.
[01:53:47.020 --> 01:53:51.020]  No, the criminal fraud goes to criminal prosecution, officer.
[01:53:51.020 --> 01:53:53.020]  No.
[01:53:53.020 --> 01:53:56.020]  And he tampered with the government document if he was required.
[01:53:56.020 --> 01:53:58.020]  And he filed a false government record.
[01:53:58.020 --> 01:54:02.020]  I'm looking at an AP article from June 19, 2008.
[01:54:02.020 --> 01:54:08.020]  Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system
[01:54:08.020 --> 01:54:10.020]  in the general election.
[01:54:10.020 --> 01:54:11.020]  For a good reason.
[01:54:11.020 --> 01:54:15.020]  Yeah, because he can raise more money without these limits.
[01:54:15.020 --> 01:54:20.020]  Well, not only that, you can't use that for another way to come after him.
[01:54:20.020 --> 01:54:22.020]  Okay, well, that's all I had.
[01:54:22.020 --> 01:54:28.020]  I was just, I mean, it was a thought that came up because if so, then it would be a good way to go after him.
[01:54:28.020 --> 01:54:29.020]  That's a good point.
[01:54:29.020 --> 01:54:33.020]  Even if he raised public funds, he raised them under false pretenses.
[01:54:33.020 --> 01:54:34.020]  Absolutely.
[01:54:34.020 --> 01:54:38.020]  Yeah, it would be the same thing as if he was asking for charity money.
[01:54:38.020 --> 01:54:43.020]  Yeah, but how would that lead to the goal of getting him out of there?
[01:54:43.020 --> 01:54:45.020]  Well, he still committed a fraud.
[01:54:45.020 --> 01:54:46.020]  It's still a criminal act.
[01:54:46.020 --> 01:54:51.020]  Well, it would be a public record of the fraud that he committed because he had to fill out the application.
[01:54:51.020 --> 01:54:52.020]  Yeah, but the thing is...
[01:54:52.020 --> 01:54:55.020]  It would give the court subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:54:55.020 --> 01:55:03.020]  And if they get subject matter jurisdiction on one act of a criminal conspiracy, they get jurisdiction on all of it.
[01:55:03.020 --> 01:55:10.020]  Yeah, see, that's the link that we need because we can't just say, oh, he committed fraud or he committed these crimes
[01:55:10.020 --> 01:55:18.020]  because then that would lead to impeachment, but he can't be impeached because he's not president.
[01:55:18.020 --> 01:55:28.020]  That he signed a paper stating and admitting that, you know, or making the claim that he was something that he hasn't proven.
[01:55:28.020 --> 01:55:33.020]  And there's got to be a way.
[01:55:33.020 --> 01:55:35.020]  Oh, well, there's all kinds of ways.
[01:55:35.020 --> 01:55:36.020]  Oh, and you know what?
[01:55:36.020 --> 01:55:38.020]  He's got all of his college records and everything.
[01:55:38.020 --> 01:55:42.020]  Oh, Acorn is the biggest way.
[01:55:42.020 --> 01:55:48.020]  Obama is Acorn's, you know, Prince Charming.
[01:55:48.020 --> 01:55:50.020]  He worked for them for years.
[01:55:50.020 --> 01:55:51.020]  They love him.
[01:55:51.020 --> 01:56:02.020]  And you know what, it's been coming out that what's really going on with Acorn is that it's a money laundering entity to take
[01:56:02.020 --> 01:56:10.020]  taxpayer money, to launder the money of taxpayers to be used for partisan purposes.
[01:56:10.020 --> 01:56:20.020]  I'm sorry to interrupt here, but that's a whole lot of 18 USC Section 4 right there.
[01:56:20.020 --> 01:56:23.020]  Absolutely.
[01:56:23.020 --> 01:56:26.020]  There's a lot more than just 18 USC Section 4.
[01:56:26.020 --> 01:56:27.020]  And you know what?
[01:56:27.020 --> 01:56:35.020]  That would give a citizen standing too because if it's my taxes that were used fraudulently,
[01:56:35.020 --> 01:56:45.020]  then that's how I've been harmed because the money came out of my pockets for this fraudster to take office illegitimately.
[01:56:45.020 --> 01:56:50.020]  That would go to Kwaitam and Kwaitam would give you standing.
[01:56:50.020 --> 01:56:57.020]  I would like to volunteer to be the replacement for this man during the interim reelection period.
[01:56:57.020 --> 01:57:01.020]  And what I would like is for a real bailout to be done.
[01:57:01.020 --> 01:57:05.020]  We will take and bulldoze all of Washington.
[01:57:05.020 --> 01:57:08.020]  You would expend all our funds on rope.
[01:57:08.020 --> 01:57:09.020]  No, no, no.
[01:57:09.020 --> 01:57:11.020]  I got a better one for you.
[01:57:11.020 --> 01:57:17.020]  Bulldoze D.C. flat, we rebuild one huge building in the center of it shaped like a toilet bowl
[01:57:17.020 --> 01:57:19.020]  and we put their offices around the rim.
[01:57:19.020 --> 01:57:22.020]  When they get out of hand, we pull the handle.
[01:57:22.020 --> 01:57:25.020]  And then we send a new group up there to try it again.
[01:57:25.020 --> 01:57:29.020]  Now, that's a thought.
[01:57:29.020 --> 01:57:31.020]  You're not as dumb as everybody said.
[01:57:31.020 --> 01:57:34.020]  Hey, you know, I got a plan, man.
[01:57:34.020 --> 01:57:36.020]  That's a lot of porcelain, though.
[01:57:36.020 --> 01:57:40.020]  Yeah, well, maybe, but they're full of marble and granite right now.
[01:57:40.020 --> 01:57:43.020]  All right, well, you guys have a good evening.
[01:57:43.020 --> 01:57:44.020]  Thank you.
[01:57:44.020 --> 01:57:45.020]  All right, thanks.
[01:57:45.020 --> 01:57:47.020]  Thank you, Jim.
[01:57:47.020 --> 01:57:57.020]  Yeah, misappropriation of funds, misuse of taxpayer funds, that's a big one there.
[01:57:57.020 --> 01:58:02.020]  Well, I just want to say that I have not taken a position about whether or not Obama is telling the truth.
[01:58:02.020 --> 01:58:05.020]  I do think this is something that should be settled in the court.
[01:58:05.020 --> 01:58:12.020]  I think if Gary Crete said it very well when he says that if Article 2 cannot be enforced, then what is next?
[01:58:12.020 --> 01:58:16.020]  Right.
[01:58:16.020 --> 01:58:20.020]  All right, well, thank you, Gary, and thank you, Dan.
[01:58:20.020 --> 01:58:25.020]  Thank you, listeners and callers, for calling in tonight.
[01:58:25.020 --> 01:58:30.020]  We're going to have Gary Crete back again.
[01:58:30.020 --> 01:58:36.020]  This is pretty incredible.
[01:58:36.020 --> 01:58:39.020]  Eddie, Randy, any closing comments?
[01:58:39.020 --> 01:58:41.020]  Too late, 20 seconds.
[01:58:41.020 --> 01:58:43.020]  Yeah, well, thanks for listening, everybody.
[01:58:43.020 --> 01:58:45.020]  Yeah, thanks for listening.
[01:58:45.020 --> 01:58:47.020]  Okay, we'll be back Thursday night.
[01:58:47.020 --> 01:58:48.020]  Vote for Eddie.
[01:58:48.020 --> 01:58:49.020]  Vote for Eddie.
[01:58:49.020 --> 01:58:51.020]  I'll vote for Eddie.
[01:58:51.020 --> 01:59:00.020]  I'll vote for Eddie.
[01:59:00.020 --> 01:59:04.020]  Activism, education, celebration.
[01:59:04.020 --> 01:59:06.020]  Looking for something to do this October?
[01:59:06.020 --> 01:59:10.020]  Be part of the largest freedom festival on either side of the Mississippi.
[01:59:10.020 --> 01:59:12.020]  The Midwest Liberty Fest.
[01:59:12.020 --> 01:59:17.020]  Come to DeCoin, Illinois, this October 9th, 10th, and 11th.
[01:59:17.020 --> 01:59:23.020]  The festival includes speakers, activist trainings, workshops, music, and great vendors.
[01:59:23.020 --> 01:59:26.020]  Bring a friend and tell them to bring a friend.
[01:59:26.020 --> 01:59:29.020]  This festival is for everyone who loves freedom of all ages.
[01:59:29.020 --> 01:59:37.020]  Don't miss the Midwest Liberty Festival at the State Fairgrounds in DeCoin, Illinois, October 9th, 10th, and 11th.
[01:59:37.020 --> 01:59:43.020]  Visit the website at www.MidwestLibertyFest.com for all the details.
[01:59:43.020 --> 01:59:47.020]  Visit the website at www.MidwestLibertyFest.com.
[01:59:47.020 --> 01:59:49.020]  Don't let the fall blue get you down.
[01:59:49.020 --> 01:59:50.020]  Come join the fun.
[01:59:50.020 --> 01:59:54.020]  Tickets are going fast, so don't miss out on the Midwest Liberty Fest.
[01:59:54.020 --> 01:59:57.020]  The best not-curver fest this year.
[01:59:57.020 --> 02:00:13.020]  Visit www.MidwestLibertyFest.com.