Speaker 1: Joining us now is Barry Hinckley. He has an organization
Speaker 1: and website Redeclaration redeclaration dot org, and he's talking about
Speaker 1: a redeclaration of independence. So I don't that it'd be
Speaker 1: good to have him on. We just had Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is talking about rejoining Britain. As I guess we're going
Speaker 1: to rejoin Britain, maybe we should talk about a red deeclaration.
Speaker 1: It's a kind of appropriate timing. But you started this
Speaker 1: quite some time ago. Tell us a little bit about it, Barry, welcome.
Speaker 2: What's great to be with you. Duvide. We started this
Speaker 2: in October of twenty three, and it's hard to think
Speaker 2: now in March of twenty five, that seems like a
Speaker 2: lifetime away. Many of us have been fighting for the
Speaker 2: values that made this country the great meritocracy. It became
Speaker 2: in the City on the Hill for many years. Then
Speaker 2: I'm from New England. My great grandfather was actually the
Speaker 2: commander of the mint Men conquered Massachusetts, eighth grandfather, and
Speaker 2: so I was born on April eighteenth, you know, the
Speaker 2: day that prescotten Dawes and our vere road, my families
Speaker 2: farm and conquered to alert them the British for coming. So,
Speaker 2: you know, great day to be born on a significant
Speaker 2: date in our history. So I've always been tuned into
Speaker 2: the country and its founding values. And obviously, if you're
Speaker 2: listening to this show, you know we've strayed a long
Speaker 2: way from those founding values, you know, before the New Deal,
Speaker 2: and certainly way after the New Deal with a massive
Speaker 2: expansion of the federal government. So this was our attempt
Speaker 2: to point out the simple fact that our federal government
Speaker 2: is way out of design tolerance and it's gobbling up
Speaker 2: our liberties and our freedoms that we are supposed to
Speaker 2: enjoy in this republic. And that's why we laid down
Speaker 2: these ten tenants of what we call the Redeclaration of
Speaker 2: Independence to try to, you know, really persuade our elected
Speaker 2: officials in Washington to represent we the people and not
Speaker 2: the interests of the deep state.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree, And of course they talked about how
Speaker 1: the king had swarms of officers to harass our people
Speaker 1: and to eat out their substance. I mean, they're going
Speaker 1: off rank supply. Now, how do we get these people's attention?
Speaker 1: What is it that? What approach are we going to take?
Speaker 1: Why did you take this approach as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: and what are you hoping to accomplish with redeclaration dot org.
Speaker 2: Well, if you go to redeclaration dot org and you
Speaker 2: read the ten tenants, you know we've actually been quite surprised.
Speaker 2: Now we laid these tenants down. In October of twenty three,
Speaker 2: about twenty two hundred people signed the Redeclaration of Independence,
Speaker 2: about seventeen hundred of which of whom agreed to have
Speaker 2: their names posted publicly. As you sign, your name gets
Speaker 2: posted publicly once we verify your real on the website.
Speaker 2: About five hundred we're so afraid of just having their
Speaker 2: name associated with the founding values that they wanted to
Speaker 2: be anonymous and tells you everything you need to know.
Speaker 2: If you live in supposedly the freest country of the
Speaker 2: world and you're afraid to post your name publicly for
Speaker 2: fear of retribution by the former administration, thankfully, we're saying
Speaker 2: the former administration, that tells you everything you need to know.
Speaker 2: So our goal was, you know, to do the same
Speaker 2: thing that the first centers of the declaration did, which
Speaker 2: is to put your name on the dotted line and
Speaker 2: sign for values that we believe will get this country
Speaker 2: back on track. And we did that after Actually I
Speaker 2: wrote I wrote it after a very inspiring speech I
Speaker 2: heard Tucker Carlson give at ISI and Wilmington, Delaware in
Speaker 2: October of I encourage all your listeners to look that
Speaker 2: speech up at the inter Scholastic Institute. Tucker gave the
Speaker 2: first speech he gave after coming out of his retirement,
Speaker 2: before he launched the Tucker Carlson Network. And we, me
Speaker 2: and a few guys, friends, compatriots wrote this down and
Speaker 2: the goal was to get as many people people as
Speaker 2: possible to sign on the dog line and then inspire
Speaker 2: our elected officials to take these tenants to Washington and
Speaker 2: see if we can reverse the course of the federal government,
Speaker 2: you know, eating our liberties alive.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree, I agree. There were no anonymous signers
Speaker 1: of the decoration from the pennants. Nobody put down a
Speaker 1: non or anonymous or anything. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: John Hancock became famous for writing his name so large.
Speaker 1: He had probably the most to lose. He's one of
Speaker 1: the wealthiest people in the US at the time. And
Speaker 1: of course it wasn't the US but the colonies or
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it at the time, and
Speaker 1: he wrote his name as big as he possibly could,
Speaker 1: and so it became something of a legend to put
Speaker 1: your John Hancock on something. But people are afraid to
Speaker 1: put their John Hancock on a redeclaration. And what does
Speaker 1: that tell us? Tells us how intimidated everybody has become
Speaker 1: by being branded a racist if they disagree with you
Speaker 1: politically or whatever. You know, that is a standard tactic.
Speaker 1: But again, you know, when we look at the and
Speaker 1: we go back into history, it was I looked up
Speaker 1: the date. It was common Sense by Thomas Pain. Came
Speaker 1: out January the tenth of seventeen seventy six. Of course,
Speaker 1: it was July fourth that the Decoration of Independence was
Speaker 1: put out there, so this was something that was percolating
Speaker 1: through society. Now, of course, the Decoration of Independence was
Speaker 1: written from the top down by the elites, but there
Speaker 1: was also Thomas Pain's common Sense spread very very quickly
Speaker 1: throughout the colonies. They had a very high literacy rate
Speaker 1: and people ate it up eagerly, so there was a
Speaker 1: grassroots of support there. So I guess my question to
Speaker 1: you is, how do you see this developing? Do you
Speaker 1: see this developing from the grassroots, the bottom up, or
Speaker 1: is this something that is going to Is there anybody
Speaker 1: that you can think of in Washington that is going
Speaker 1: to be aligned with even these ten points that you
Speaker 1: put in this shorter redeclaration.
Speaker 2: Well, interestingly, we know that it got all the way
Speaker 2: to the top. You know, I sent it to Tucker,
Speaker 2: who I have developed a relationship with since writing this,
Speaker 2: and they kept passed around to Levek and other people.
Speaker 2: Robert F. Kennedy I sent to. I also know him
Speaker 2: personally as well. Uh. And so we know these ten
Speaker 2: tenants made it to the top. Uh. And if you
Speaker 2: look at what's happened since we've written them and since
Speaker 2: President Trump was sworn in in January, Uh, you know,
Speaker 2: they're either getting talked about or they've come true. Like
Speaker 2: you know, the ninth tenant, I think it's the eight
Speaker 2: or ninth. Uh, you know, eliminated the Department of Education.
Speaker 2: We kind of threw that one in there as really
Speaker 2: wishful thinking. Well, sure enough, here we are the Department
Speaker 2: of Education. You know, let's see, you know, how the
Speaker 2: court system addresses this executive order. But you know Trump
Speaker 2: has already taken action that way. He mentioned a balanced
Speaker 2: budget in the State of the Union. We know we
Speaker 2: have DEI out of the military, another one of our tenants.
Speaker 2: He is pulling us out of the you know, these
Speaker 2: globalist organizations, which is make making sure that Americans are
Speaker 2: only subject to American law, not international law. He's already
Speaker 2: taking steps through tariff to level the playing field for
Speaker 2: American workers. You know, he has mentioned a single day
Speaker 2: paper ballot voting. You know, our last request on that
Speaker 2: tenant is to actually make Veterans Day have some real
Speaker 2: impact and make Veterans Day voting day. Make it a
Speaker 2: national holiday, so we can not only on our veterans,
Speaker 2: but people have the day off and take the whole
Speaker 2: day to vote, not have to try to scramble in
Speaker 2: before or after work. So, you know, I think about
Speaker 2: six or seven of them have already been addressed. You know,
Speaker 2: a balanced budget amendment has not been addressed yet, but
Speaker 2: has been talked about, as you know, in his State
Speaker 2: of Union. So we've made an immense amount of progress
Speaker 2: with these ten tenants since October of twenty three when
Speaker 2: we publish them, and in fact, we're pleasantly surprised at
Speaker 2: how much progress we've made.
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned DEI and you mentioned RFK Junior about
Speaker 1: this at the beginning of the program. I was talking
Speaker 1: about the new CDC appointment that was put in by Trump,
Speaker 1: who was first there was somebody who had been a
Speaker 1: vaccine critic. He is a medical doctor who talked about
Speaker 1: connections between autism and vaccines, but he was essentially vetoed
Speaker 1: by a pharmaceutical senator, Republican Cassidy. And now Trump has
Speaker 1: just announced as his nomination the person who is serving
Speaker 1: as the interim CDC head, somebody who at the CDC.
Speaker 1: We see that they have now purged DEI off of
Speaker 1: their website, which is good. I'm glad that they're getting
Speaker 1: DEI off. The problem is that they're still approving on
Speaker 1: an emergency use basis more vaccines and still continuing on
Speaker 1: with a childhood vaccine schedule. But do you see that
Speaker 1: as a victory. What do you think is really happening
Speaker 1: with RFK Junior, with HHS, with CDC, with Trump in
Speaker 1: that area.
Speaker 2: Well, you're talking about a trillion dollar plus agency, and
Speaker 2: battleships don't turn on a dime. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: work to be done, and there's a massively entrenched financial
Speaker 2: and governmental institution enforcing the status quo. So it is
Speaker 2: not going to be easy to get America healthy again.
Speaker 2: To make America healthy again, RFK has many foes that
Speaker 2: are highly paid to block his path.
Speaker 1: But he said, but he's okay. As part of his
Speaker 1: condition to get a pointed, he said, he's okay with
Speaker 1: a vaccine schedule that's being put out there, and nobody
Speaker 1: is banning, not at the state level, not at the
Speaker 1: federal level. Nobody is banning these mRNA shots. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, they're working to take it to the
Speaker 1: next level. And the CDC director has been involved in
Speaker 1: using artificial intelligence, just like Larry Ellison, who was featured
Speaker 1: by Trump with the Stargate Project a day or so
Speaker 1: after he became president, talking about how they would use
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence to custom design genetic vaccines for people. You know,
Speaker 1: I look at this and I see a massive poisoning
Speaker 1: that is happening in our society, and yet we are
Speaker 1: thinking that we've got victory when we just get tend
Speaker 1: to stop talking about this gender insanity. I don't you know,
Speaker 1: it seems to me like they're majoring in the miners,
Speaker 1: if they're doing anything at all at this point.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm just asked you to be patient because this
Speaker 2: isn't a battle. This is a war.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what is a war does? And it's been going
Speaker 1: on for five years, this vaccine war, and I'm sick
Speaker 1: and tired of seeing people die from this. Oh it's
Speaker 1: been going on for decades, absolutely, But the Trump shots
Speaker 1: have been going on for five years. And Trump is
Speaker 1: still pushing this mRNA poison out on people. That's the
Speaker 1: thing that concerns me about it. So I'm not as
Speaker 1: salient as you are that there's going to be anybody
Speaker 1: in Washington that's going to do this. I see this
Speaker 1: as rearranging the deck chairs and trying to rebuild trust
Speaker 1: and a government that cannot be trusted. We never had
Speaker 1: the founders ever trusted government. Patrick Henry said, trust no
Speaker 1: man bind them down with the chains of the constitution.
Speaker 1: And yet this entire operation of RFK Junior and the
Speaker 1: rest of them is about building blind trust and people
Speaker 1: who've been murdering us for money.
Speaker 2: Well, let me finish here. Two things they'll say to you,
Speaker 2: I guarantee you r f K Junior is going to
Speaker 2: do one thing and one thing well as it relates
Speaker 2: to vaccines and taking on this massive pharmaceutical industrial complex.
Speaker 2: He knows, you know, and even Trump alluded to this
Speaker 2: in his State of Union address. When you talk about
Speaker 2: one in thirty six kids have autism now and it
Speaker 2: used to be one in ten thousand, Okay, point look
Speaker 2: no farther than vaccines and poisonous food. Okay, So we're
Speaker 2: zeroing in on the targets. But what RFK will do,
Speaker 2: I promise you, is he will arm mothers and fathers
Speaker 2: with information so they can make a decision to opt
Speaker 2: out of these vaccines. That will be the first step. Okay,
Speaker 2: And you know Rome wasn't built in today when you've
Speaker 2: got five six decades of vaccin scenes and huge, massive,
Speaker 2: multi billion dollar complexes, you know, pushing them down doctor's throats.
Speaker 2: If you limit the ability for doctors to make money
Speaker 2: on procedures, but you know, incentivize them to make money
Speaker 2: on pumping kids pull of shots, guess what you're going
Speaker 2: to get. That's going to take a long time to
Speaker 2: unline that, and I believe that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 2: It's going to be first wage with information, and that
Speaker 2: information will arm voters and parents with what they need
Speaker 2: to roll the stuff back and make our food, in
Speaker 2: our in our medicine healthy again.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope that's going to be the case. I
Speaker 1: think that we've got enough information, quite frankly, and I
Speaker 1: think what we need is common sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah you might and I might, but not enough.
Speaker 1: People do, right, I agree, But I don't think that
Speaker 1: a savior in Washington is going to help us. I
Speaker 1: think what we need is some common sense, and we
Speaker 1: need a spirit of independence that is going to rise
Speaker 1: up from the bottom, not from the top down. I
Speaker 1: don't see these people when I see them going to Washington.
Speaker 1: I see them going these confirmation hearings. They're literally selling
Speaker 1: their soul. They are contradicting everything that they've talked about
Speaker 1: for their entire life. They deny it in order to
Speaker 1: get the position. And when you do that type of thing,
Speaker 1: you don't have people of character that can lead this
Speaker 1: country if they begin by denying what they have said
Speaker 1: all of their life. I just don't see that happening.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about the Department of Education. Now. This
Speaker 1: executive order to get the Department of Education down, this
Speaker 1: is something that I've not yet talked about today. But
Speaker 1: what do you see changing at the Department of Education?
Speaker 1: If they're going to continue funding from Washington, does it
Speaker 1: matter that we have a bureaucracy up there. If they're
Speaker 1: going to send the money, how do you view that
Speaker 1: as a Is that a real shutdown of the Department
Speaker 1: of Education if they're going to still provide the money.
Speaker 2: Well, once again, you're talking about three almost three decades
Speaker 2: worth of precedent. They have to get unwound. And it's
Speaker 2: not going to happen overnight.
Speaker 1: So I mean they're shutting down those way, they're shutting
Speaker 1: down spending it with DOGE overnight in some areas, right,
Speaker 1: So I mean they could just say we're not going
Speaker 1: to continue. When you look at four hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: just to Columbia University, which Trump shut down because they
Speaker 1: had protested Israeli politics. But why are they getting four
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars? I think it's incredible. It's the money
Speaker 1: that needs to stop, and it needs to stop just
Speaker 1: because the government doesn't have the authority to do it.
Speaker 1: We could have a balanced budget amendment, but you know,
Speaker 1: how are we going to balance that budget if we're
Speaker 1: going to be sending Ivy League colleges hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars A year.
Speaker 2: I don't understand you're not going to find an argument
Speaker 2: for me there, and you're certainly not going to find
Speaker 2: an argument for me that it makes a lot of
Speaker 2: sense to send money from Ohio to Washington just to
Speaker 2: get it back again, knowing that people are going to
Speaker 2: clip q poms the entire way. You know, I say,
Speaker 2: keep it in Ohio in the first place. You know,
Speaker 2: I think if you follow what Trump's doing is talking
Speaker 2: about eliminating income tax for people making less than one
Speaker 2: hundred and fify thousan dollars. You know, the byline is
Speaker 2: that money doesn't go to Washington and stays in the state. Right,
Speaker 2: So certainly the remedy, in my opinion, is exactly the
Speaker 2: design of the founders, which is, you know, in power
Speaker 2: the states to control their own destiny, you know, within
Speaker 2: the formation, the foundation of the formation of our republic.
Speaker 2: So I think unwinding the Department of Education is not
Speaker 2: once again an overnight task. You have to clip away
Speaker 2: at it and eventually get rid of it because there
Speaker 2: is going to be a massive amount of resistance. I
Speaker 2: mean to keep in mind, the Department of Education is
Speaker 2: often seen as the arbiter of elections because if you
Speaker 2: have let's say, four million voters that are either employed
Speaker 2: as teachers or related or married to a teacher, or
Speaker 2: in some type of you know, administration role in the
Speaker 2: public school system, and you have a country tied fifty
Speaker 2: to fifty on elections. Those four million people decide who
Speaker 2: becomes the president. So it's a very it's a sacred
Speaker 2: cow for Democratic Party. They launder an immense amount of
Speaker 2: money through union dues into their elections. Uh, they are
Speaker 2: gonna they are not going to go down without a fight.
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, it's the old old saying,
Speaker 2: how do you eat an elephant? It's one bite at
Speaker 2: a time. But you know, the Department of Education is
Speaker 2: in our sites, and I mean the sites of true
Speaker 2: Libertarians and Republicans, and I think we will grind it down,
Speaker 2: but it's not going to happen overnight. But I agree
Speaker 2: with you that you know the the you know, I
Speaker 2: have I spent a ton of money for my daughter
Speaker 2: to go to George Washington University in Washington, d c.
Speaker 2: And it was a giant scamp. She learned more in
Speaker 2: high school than she did in college. So it's a
Speaker 2: very very good high school.
Speaker 1: It wasn't fortunately for you. It's probably good she didn't
Speaker 1: learn anything at George Washington, as they would have taught
Speaker 1: her the wrong stuff. It's really it's really about Indoctrinasian
Speaker 1: more than it is about education in so many ways,
Speaker 1: as you're not wrong, yeah, as you know and so
Speaker 1: not wrong. It's that's why the government wants to keep it.
Speaker 1: It's foot in it, and that's why it wants to
Speaker 1: control the purse strings because ultimately, both this government as
Speaker 1: well as subsequent Democrat governments, Democrat run governments will set
Speaker 1: the curriculum. If they can fund it, they will define
Speaker 1: what it's going to be. But let's talk about some
Speaker 1: of the ways that they're going to do this. For example,
Speaker 1: we know that when they have shut down anything they've
Speaker 1: shut down immediately, they've had lawsuits brought against them. And
Speaker 1: so you talked about states rights and how we have
Speaker 1: separation of powers, and I said state rights, I met
Speaker 1: state powers, how we have a separation of powers and
Speaker 1: checks and balances and that type of thing. But also
Speaker 1: within the federal government. The big issue with all of
Speaker 1: this stuff, and the thing that I think they're going
Speaker 1: to have to address or they won't get anything done,
Speaker 1: is going to be judicial supremacy if you can have judges,
Speaker 1: and I know that they've talked about the fact that
Speaker 1: we can't have one judge who's going to make policy
Speaker 1: for the entire nation. But it is through that whole
Speaker 1: judicial supremacy thing is going to have to be challenged.
Speaker 1: Along the line is I think of what Andrew Jackson
Speaker 1: did when he said, the Supreme Courts made their decision,
Speaker 1: let's see them enforce it. I think if the Trump
Speaker 1: administration doesn't do that, none of the actions that they
Speaker 1: have taken are going to last. And I don't think
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to do any of the
Speaker 1: kind of cuts and restructuring that they would like to do.
Speaker 1: What do you think about that? And do you think
Speaker 1: that they will directly challenge judicial supremacy.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration? Yeah, yeah, you think, yeah, of course.
Speaker 2: I mean he's going to fight every step of the
Speaker 2: way and when we need some precedent here, and I
Speaker 2: think they pointed out that there's already been some presidents
Speaker 2: said by the Supreme Court. But they're challenging, you know,
Speaker 2: they meaning, you know, the judiciary, you know, liberal activist judges.
Speaker 2: Let's be let's be real about what's going on here,
Speaker 2: are ignoring the president and throwing down roadblocks. I think
Speaker 2: many people understand what's really going on here is they're
Speaker 2: trying to slow down the Trump train, and they feel
Speaker 2: if they can bind this thing up in court. And
Speaker 2: these are all derivatives from Yale Law School, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: Harvard Law School and all the other massively liberal lead
Speaker 2: law schools, they figure if they can slow the Trump
Speaker 2: train down long enough and they can somehow, you know,
Speaker 2: pull out some type of a coup and the midterms,
Speaker 2: they can bind this thing up and Trump won't succeed
Speaker 2: in right sizing a republic. I think that's the game
Speaker 2: that's getting played here. And I think they're completely ignoring
Speaker 2: what is precedent. They're completely ignoring the law, and they're
Speaker 2: just trying to slow things down. Throw a wrench in it,
Speaker 2: if you will. I think Trump's going to fight it
Speaker 2: every step of the way, and he should.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know if you will, but you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen some of that. I saw a little bit
Speaker 1: of hope when you had a judge that said you
Speaker 1: can't deport these criminals back to El Salvador, send them
Speaker 1: to El Salvador, whatever, and they did it. Anyway, and
Speaker 1: I thought, Okay, well, now that's what they need to do.
Speaker 1: But then they came back and they said, but we're
Speaker 1: doing this and staying within the orders of the judges
Speaker 1: and that type of thing. So I still don't see
Speaker 1: the fact that they really want to fight this. I know,
Speaker 1: then the first administration you had Trump, who was opposed.
Speaker 1: He ran opposing Dhaka. But when he got there, the
Speaker 1: deferred action and tr arrivals, when he got there, that
Speaker 1: was not even a law that was passed by Congress.
Speaker 1: That was an executive order by the Obama administration, not
Speaker 1: even by Obama so much as by Napolitano, who was
Speaker 1: his attorney general. And he abided by that when you know,
Speaker 1: he asked permission of the judiciary and they said, no,
Speaker 1: you can't get rid of the previous executive order from
Speaker 1: the previous administration. It was absolutely absurd. So I'm not
Speaker 1: really sure that they're going to do that. I hope
Speaker 1: that they do, And I think that when we talk
Speaker 1: about how one branch is exercising supremacy over any other branch,
Speaker 1: that is really a violation of the separation of powers.
Speaker 1: As I'm sure you would agree, right.
Speaker 2: Certainly agree you know, and as far as it relates
Speaker 2: to Trump's first term, I think he admits he was
Speaker 2: naive and he had a lot of the wrong people
Speaker 2: around him. A lot of them were you know, swamp
Speaker 2: creatures that you know, had an interest in the status quo.
Speaker 2: And this time he's come in guns blazing. I'm quite
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people are quite with the
Speaker 2: pace of play here. In fact, he's pushing the establishment
Speaker 2: way out of his comfort zone, which is why you
Speaker 2: know they're hitting back, you know, so hard, because they
Speaker 2: realize it's a fight for life and death of the
Speaker 2: deep state versus the return to our Republic.
Speaker 1: I agree. Well, you know, when you talk about secure
Speaker 1: our elections, I absolutely agree with what you have in person,
Speaker 1: single day elections with a valid I D. I think
Speaker 1: that is, unless we have that, I'm not voting again.
Speaker 1: I'll run for Congress, but I'm not voting again unless.
Speaker 2: We've got it. They'll vote for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: Several times.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: I've told the story you've ever lived.
Speaker 1: That's right. I've told his story before of a friend
Speaker 1: of my brother in law who went in North Carolina
Speaker 1: where they got a very long voting period and no
Speaker 1: id he shows up to the poll on election day
Speaker 1: and they said, you've already voted. No, I haven't said
Speaker 1: yes you And all you have to do is gove
Speaker 1: them a name and an address. You and this other
Speaker 1: person at your addressing goes, well, that's my mother. She's
Speaker 1: been dead for several years. So yeah, they will vote
Speaker 1: for you. But so we have first hand experience with that.
Speaker 1: Talk a little bit about term limits because I remember
Speaker 1: when neuke Ingrich had his contract with America, and that
Speaker 1: was one of the ten things in the contract with America.
Speaker 1: It was the one thing that he did not pursue
Speaker 1: when they got there, because I actually even got through
Speaker 1: a line item veto, and of all things, it was
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani who challenged that and took it to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and got that overturn. But when we get
Speaker 1: to term limits, do you see any sign whatsoever that
Speaker 1: there's anybody in Congress that is interested in term limits?
Speaker 2: Sadly no, because it's the best job they've ever.
Speaker 1: Had and they're making it better all the time. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I ran for US Senate in twenty
Speaker 2: twelve against Sheldon white House, and so I know the
Speaker 2: inside of the game pretty well. And these folks have
Speaker 2: the scales tipped so far towards the incumbency that the
Speaker 2: only way you ever get them out would be two
Speaker 2: term limits because the deck is completely stacked. Unless they
Speaker 2: get a photograph of you with the little boy, you're
Speaker 2: not going anywhere.
Speaker 1: So that's that's how you get elected to Congress. And
Speaker 1: if you've got a photograph of you with a little boy,
Speaker 1: I think that's the guy.
Speaker 2: That's how Big Pharma rolls you because they had a photograph.
Speaker 2: That's another. But you know, so you know we need
Speaker 2: term limits. We need it badly. It's you know a
Speaker 2: lot of people talk about it. It's the one blind
Speaker 2: spot that the founders missed. I mean, they couldn't be perfect.
Speaker 2: They were certainly prophetic, but they weren't perfect, and they
Speaker 2: missed this one. They never thought that people would be
Speaker 2: so selfish. And let's face it, if you have stayed
Speaker 2: beyond your useful life, you know, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 2: Chuck Schumer, you know read the list out. You know,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, you know you are so out of touch
Speaker 2: with what the average American needs and you end up
Speaker 2: getting you know, you're you're trading in trillions of dollars,
Speaker 2: you have innumerable powers, and uh, you know, you make
Speaker 2: one hundred seventy five grand a year. That leads to
Speaker 2: corruption and we see it over and over again, and
Speaker 2: you know how you know, I was talking to my
Speaker 2: wife last night. I was like, how did we end
Speaker 2: up in an era where the average American thinks it's
Speaker 2: okay that, you know, two years out of office? You know,
Speaker 2: politicians retire worth one hundred and seventy five million dollars,
Speaker 2: like it would have been obvious corruption, you know one
Speaker 2: hundred years ago. You know, you know, I'm a Yankee
Speaker 2: from New England. You go, you serve, you go back,
Speaker 2: and now we have you know, Olympia Snow Republican from
Speaker 2: Maine worth fifty million dollars as a as a career senator.
Speaker 2: How'd that happen?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Like, so we need term limits, we needed badly. I have.
Speaker 2: I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll enforce
Speaker 2: it on themselves. Let's face it, Congress in forced term
Speaker 2: limits on the president when they had a chance. They
Speaker 2: didn't do it on themselves, you know after FDR.
Speaker 1: So that's right, yes, you.
Speaker 2: Know, hopeful thinking hopefully we'll have a true benevolent leader
Speaker 2: that gets it done.
Speaker 1: I think part of the problem is, you know, we look,
Speaker 1: I think we've we've got a really good metric for
Speaker 1: the amount of corruption that is in Washington when we
Speaker 1: look at the amount of money that spent on the elections,
Speaker 1: and you know what, twenty the two thousand elections you had,
Speaker 1: George W. Bush spent one hundred million dollars and Al
Speaker 1: Gore spent seventy. They spend more than that now on
Speaker 1: Senate and House races, and we have so much concentration
Speaker 1: of power even in those Senate and House races. Because
Speaker 1: one of the early things that was ignored from the
Speaker 1: in the Constitution from the very get go was limiting
Speaker 1: the number of people that could be represented by a congressman.
Speaker 1: And they got rid of that and they fixed the
Speaker 1: number of congressmen rather than fixing the maximum number of
Speaker 1: people that could be represented. So that that's really kind
Speaker 1: of gotten out of hand. It seems like that is
Speaker 1: something that is right for reform as well.
Speaker 2: What do you think, Well, big concern I had as
Speaker 2: it relates to, you know, attribution of Congress congressmen and
Speaker 2: women is you know, what's happening in California, for example,
Speaker 2: where you have millions of undocumented people. And this was
Speaker 2: the huge you know, miss and Trump challenged this, you know,
Speaker 2: in his first term when he challenged the Census Bureau
Speaker 2: counting everyone in the state and still having that apply
Speaker 2: to how Congress is apportioned, you know, in the House.
Speaker 2: And he lost that in the Supreme Court. And that,
Speaker 2: you know, I had. I was living in Rhode Island
Speaker 2: at the time. Rhode Island's population was shrinking. We had
Speaker 2: two congressmen, and I had and I keep in mind,
Speaker 2: I had run for you a Senate in rodewaland so
Speaker 2: I knew who the It's only a million people in
Speaker 2: the state, you know, everyone in politics, and I knew
Speaker 2: that all the hardcore leftist activists, they were all working
Speaker 2: for the census. They showed up at my house multiple
Speaker 2: times trying to find people because I had a large house,
Speaker 2: trying to find people to add to the roles. I
Speaker 2: guarantee you they counted everyone, and beyond everyone's wildest dreams,
Speaker 2: Rhode Island somehow held on to a Congressional seat that
Speaker 2: everyone predicted we'd lose. So they still had and and
Speaker 2: so you know. That's what I really am concerned about
Speaker 2: is the uh, you know, is the massive amount of
Speaker 2: illegals here in this country that are apportioned into Congress.
Speaker 2: So think about that. If you're taking you know, millions
Speaker 2: or hundreds of thousands of people and you're giving them
Speaker 2: Congress people and then electing them, you know, to Washington
Speaker 2: and then they can vote how taxpayer dollars are spent.
Speaker 2: That's real power and that's what's really going on. That's
Speaker 2: what really worries me. Quite frankly.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, oh yeah. It absolutely is a It is
Speaker 1: a government created problem what we have with the border
Speaker 1: and with immigration. Again, it remains to be seen what
Speaker 1: is going to happen with all this stuff. It's early
Speaker 1: days and we've seen a lot of things that are moving.
Speaker 1: But as you point out, you know, the court is
Speaker 1: coming in and shutting down all these different actions. I
Speaker 1: think it is going to require a direct confrontation about
Speaker 1: judicial supremacy or all this stuff is just going to
Speaker 1: be playing the to the fan club and then getting
Speaker 1: overturned by the judiciary within a few months or whatever.
Speaker 1: I think that's all going to be reversed everything they've done.
Speaker 1: If they don't directly attack this judicial supremacy if they
Speaker 1: don't re establish a separation of powers. I don't think
Speaker 1: any of this stuff is going to work or will last,
Speaker 1: but hopefully we'll see what happens with this. And again,
Speaker 1: the website is zu redeclaration dot org and people can
Speaker 1: go there, take a look at the document and thank
Speaker 1: you for what you do. I really do appreciate you
Speaker 1: standing up and focusing on these founding principles Barry and
Speaker 1: Barry Hinckley is our guest, and he has set up
Speaker 1: redeclaration dot org. I hope that people can see this,
Speaker 1: and I hope they get the courage to sign their
Speaker 1: John Hancock on what it is that they believe. That's
Speaker 1: one of the key things. We've got to not run
Speaker 1: away from what we believe. Thank you so much, Barry,
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Thank you for putting this up and putting
Speaker 1: your name there. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Thanks for having
Speaker 2: me