SPEAKER_00 0:10

Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Treaty. Ladies and gentlemen, as I was preparing for this episode, just to say I got it a little bit worked up, and I'm gonna try to keep my emotions in check as we talk about something that to me is extremely important, and each of us needs to understand what's happening. So I'm gonna get right to it right now. Article one, section four, clause one of the Constitution states, quote, the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. End of quote. Article two, section one, clause two of the same constitution says this, quote, each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress. These two articles and the respective sections that I just read from represent law codified in the United States Constitution. Subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution in 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, which states, quote, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty five was absolutely necessary to further ensure that all citizens be afforded the right to vote. In other words, that intimidating someone because of skin color or any other aspect or character of human existence became illegal. In none of these provisions will you get an argument from me. I respect it all, I think it is all or has been necessary in order to ensure the sacred right to vote in this country. So you'll not get any pushback from me when it comes to this, period. However, the pushback is going to be the rest of this episode. And who do you suppose that the pushback is going to take place against? Well, wait no longer. It's the Department of Justice, so called. As all of us are aware, there were some, I don't know, irregularities in the last presidential election in November of 2020, and the Department of Justice, or D.O.J. recently published on July 28, 2021, a document called Federal Law Constraints on Post-election Audits. Now, the word audits in the title of the publication is in quotes. I believe there is some significance to that, and hopefully by the time we're done here today, you'll understand why I think that way. I don't like beating around the bush normally, so let me just say that this title is a complete ruse. It is used to completely deceive or throw off your attention on actual audits of elections, and instead convince you to believe that the purpose of post-election investigations into voter integrity are nothing more than voter intimidation. In my opinion, ladies and gentlemen, this idea that these departments of the government, all these ABC or alphabet organizations that we have in the government, engage in the business of partisan politics or picking aside is a detriment to our society, it's a detriment to the Constitution. It's not good at all. Also, it's my opinion that if you don't see these things happening because you choose not to see them, because it doesn't exactly square with your political beliefs or your political opinions or whatever, then you're part of the problem, plain and simple. I mean, no offense by saying this to anyone, but it's true. If you cannot and are unwilling to admit that there is a problem in these governmental agencies, these departments that are full of bureaucrats who are unelected, unaccountable, if you don't see that, then heaven help us. I'll be reading from this DOJ document and providing commentary on the things that I read, and I sincerely invite you to either look up the document yourself and look to see its merits, look to see its flaws, determine for yourself if this is something that you consider to be a problem, because I do. The opening paragraph of the report, document, publication, whatever you want to call it, states, quote, the U.S. Department of Justice is committed to ensuring full compliance with all federal laws regarding elections. This includes those provisions of federal law that govern the retention and preservation of election records, or that prohibit intimidation of or interference with any person's right to vote or to serve as an election official. I know that seems pretty harmless, right? But determining one's legal right to vote is not intimidation or interference with one's right to vote. It is a necessary evil in the times in which we live. It's not intimidation or interference to determine if someone is legally permitted to vote in the United States of America. It's not that difficult, but apparently for the DOJ, it is. The simple idea of ensuring that citizens have access to a valid and recognized ID card is gotta be one of the simplest things that anyone can do. I don't care who you are. You either okay, if you can't drive and you're completely dependent on others for your transportation, you're trying to tell me that there is a significant amount of people in America who can't find someone to take them to the DMV or to wherever they get their ID cards to prove who they are. You're trying to tell me that there are people who can't do that? That's disgusting, and I don't believe it. I'm sorry. It's just not the case. However, securing an ID card to vote is not what I'm here to discuss today. Here's another Jim, and try to contain yourself when I read this one. Quote The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history, according to a joint statement issued by federal and state officials and released by the Federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. In many jurisdictions, there were automatic recounts or canvases pursuant to state law due to the closeness of the election results. None of those state law recounts produced evidence of either wrongdoing or mistakes that casts any doubt on the outcome of the national election results. End of quote. Well, I have one basic question. If it was the most secure, quote unquote, election in American history, then why drag their feet to audit the election? I don't understand. If it was indeed the most secure election in American history, then why should there be any concern about what an audit might uncover?

unknown 9:12

Hmm.

SPEAKER_00 9:12

Yeah, interesting, huh? In any case, it seems evident to me that the DOJ has no understanding of Article I or Article II of the Constitution, nor any understanding of the Fifteenth Amendment. No, I don't believe that the DOJ wants to get to the bottom of things in this election or what happened in the most recent election. They go on to say, quote, in recent months in a number of jurisdictions around the United States, an unusual second round of examinations have been conducted or proposed. These examinations would look at certain ballots, election records, and election systems used to conduct elections in 2020. These examinations, sometimes referred to as audits, in quotes again, are governed in the first instance by state law. In the quote, let me stop right there. The first thing that the document has correct, they are governed by state law. Not the DOJ no, by state law. Let me continue. In some circumstances, the proposed examinations may comply with state law, in others, they will not. But regardless of the relevant state law, federal law imposes additional constraints with which every jurisdiction must comply. This document provides information about those federal constraints, which are enforced by the Department of Justice. End of quote. This is hilarious. Actually, it's not. If it weren't so serious, it may be, but no. The last sentence that I read where it says this document provides information about those federal constraints, which are enforced by the Department of Justice, ladies and gentlemen, that is a prelude to what they are trying to convince you to believe. That is, that the past presidential election was all about intimidation and interference, not legitimately conducting an audit to see who the real winner in the election was. This is simply not the role of the DOJ. Exclamation point. Screw the period. Unfortunately, by reading what I'm about to read to you, it substantiates the fact that I am right about what this document actually is. They say this quote, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, now codified as 52 USC, governs certain federal election records. Section 301 of the Act requires state and local election officials to retain and preserve all records relating to any act requisite to voting for 22 months after the conduct of any general, special, or primary election at which citizens vote for president, vice president, presidential elector, member of the Senate, or member of the House of Representatives. The ultimate purpose of the Civil Rights Act's preservation and retention requirements for federal elections records is to secure a more effective protection of the right to vote. End of quote. They are focusing and they want you to focus on the idea that it's all about interference and intimidation. It's pathetic. Later in the document, they quote three or four different aspects of the Civil Rights Act and voting intimidation and interference, and they cite various law cases relative to that fact. I'm not going to go into those because they're pathetic, and that's not what this article is all about. It's not about voter intimidation or interference. They're playing a stinking shell game with our minds, and I'm not going to be fooled by it, and I don't think you should either. Listen to this one quote. Election audits are exceedingly rare, but the department is concerned that some jurisdictions conducting them may be using or proposing to use procedures that risk violating the Civil Rights Act. The duty to retain and preserve election records necessarily requires that elections officials maintain the security and integrity of those records and their attendant chain of custody so that a complete and uncompromised record of federal elections can be reliably accessed and used in federal law enforcement matters. Where election records leave the control of elections officials, the systems for maintaining the security, integrity, and chain of custody of those records can easily be broken. Moreover, where elections records are no longer under the control of elections officials, this can lead to a significant risk of the records being lost, stolen, altered, compromised, or destroyed. This risk is exacerbated if the election records are given to private actors who have neither experience nor expertise in handling such records and who are unfamiliar with the obligations imposed by federal law. End of quote. Actual cases. Well, I presume they are actual cases. I have not studied them and I don't know for sure, but I have to presume that they are legitimate cases of election interference and intimidation. They don't do that for the 2020 election. In the last piece that I read, they talk about uncompromised records of federal elections and that they can be reliably accessed and used in federal law enforcement matters. Well, do we know and can we be assured that a complete and uncompromised record, quote unquote, of the most recent presidential election was actually preserved? Do we know that? I don't think so. And incidentally, we don't know about it to the extent that we should, because anyone who discusses it or brings it up is shamed as if they're some kind of traitor to the country. It's just disgusting, people. Come on. Look. I warned you at the beginning that this was something that had really boiled my blood. It's it still is, as you may be able to tell, and it's it's just wrong. It's wrong that we have departments of the government who are partisan. It's not supposed to be that way. When I was growing up, you looked at all these different branches of the government, these bureaucrats. They were proud to serve our country, and they went wherever the evidence led them. Not the case anymore, unfortunately. What about this sentence from the publication? Quote, federal law prohibits intimidating voters or those attempting to vote. You may remember at the beginning that I talked about this article or the title specifically as a ruse. Well, are you feeling it now? Do you believe it now? It's one of the best propaganda pieces for deception that I think I've probably ever seen. What does stating that federal law prohibits intimidating voters or those in attempting to vote have to do with anything relating to auditing the integrity of the election? It has nothing to do with it. They're two separate animals. If the DOJ wants to talk about election interference or intimidation, then let them do so. But don't try to combine the idea of performing audits of an election with voter intimidation and interference. It's a stretch, big time. There's a paragraph where the DOJ cites in this publication, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 12 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. And in this paragraph, they use such words as intimidate, threaten, coerce, quote, for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote. End of quote. Think about this for a moment, if you will. Is this not what the DOJ itself is doing with respect to intimidating any state, any official of that state, to conduct an audit of the vote in their respective state? Isn't this happening? Aren't they doing the very thing that they are speaking against people being able to do in this particular publication? It seems to me that that's what they're doing. They say that, quote, the Attorney General is authorized to file a civil action seeking preventative relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction against any person who engages in actions that violate these statutes. And there are criminal penalties as well. End of quote. Is that not intimidation? Is that not coercing someone to say, you know what? Hmm, my freedom is more important. I think I'll just kind of slide down between the cracks here and just go unnoticed so that I don't get in trouble by the DOJ. Unbelievable. Well, to say that the publication is devoid of any comical relief would not be altogether true. Because they say this, quote, if jurisdictions have questions about the constraints federal law places on the kinds of post-election audits they can conduct, they should contact the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. End of quote. Are you serious? They now want to talk about audits in the last paragraph of the publication when all throughout all they've been talking about is voter intimidation and voter interference? Unbelievable. I swear, as you couldn't make this up if you tried. Let me continue with the last paragraph. Quote: If citizens believe a jurisdiction has violated the Civil Rights Act's election record retention and preservation requirements, or believe they have been subjected to intimidation, they can use the Civil Rights Division's online complaint form to report their concerns, or call 800-253-3931. End of quote. And yes, if you're wondering, that is the phone number that they list in the publication. Ladies and gentlemen, in all seriousness, if any of us have confidence that the DOJ is going to treat us fairly, equitably, and with the blindfold on that Lady Justice has, I mean, really? I I wouldn't feel confident at all. In fact, I'm a little intimidated by the fact that they've written this publication and that they put it out there for the world to see. Well, I wanted to make sure that I got this out there so that people could know that it's there. And I encourage you to go and read it for yourself. Go find out what's in it. And come to your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it. Go and look for yourself, please. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, let me just say that I am not a denier of voting rights, intimidation, or interference or coercion or anything like that. It happened in our history. It's part of our history, even in the 20th century. But please don't try to convince me that it is something that is prevalent in our society today because good luck in trying to do that. I'd like to end this episode, ladies and gentlemen, with a quote from a gentleman who knew something of real intimidation and real interference when it came to voting or being able to have the right to vote, and that gentleman is Frederick Douglass. In 1865, he said this No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivation of their rights. By depriving us of suffrage, you affirm our incapacity to form an intelligent judgment respecting public men and public measures. You declare before the world that we are unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and by this means lead us to undervalue ourselves, to put a low estimate upon ourselves, and to feel that we have no possibilities like other men. Again, I want the elective franchise, for one, as a colored man, because ours is a peculiar government based upon a peculiar idea, and that idea is universal suffrage. End of quote. You owe it to yourself to look at it, you owe it to yourself to realize what components of our government are trying to do. It's not a pretty picture, and I know a lot of us want to look the other way, but we cannot afford to look the other way. We have to look at it, we have to study it, we have to digest it, and we must come to the conclusion that there are those in our government who don't have our best interests. And though this does apply to elected officials, it also applies to those unaccountable bureaucratic folks who are behind the scenes. But in the end, we the people have the last day.