So, I was listening to Rev Massey earlier.
Take a minute on the floor there to say his piece on.
Ah, just what's going on in Congress these days.
Can we be honest with the American people about what's going on here?
This is political theater.
I'm going to call out both sides right here.
It's all posturing, it's fake fighting.
We all know where it ends up.
This is Groundhog Day.
I don't care if the Democrat is the Speaker or Republican is the Speaker.
They're just straight telling everybody, to their faces, things that I just, I still
every once in a while I just have to pinch myself like am I, is this, am I awake right
now?
Am I in one of those dreams that I have?
Is this happening in our reality?
There's no way that this winter is ever going to end.
We have Glenn Greenwald.
There's like a viral post of his that's going around where he's talking about, you know,
it's kind of weird how just everybody, everybody knows we don't really have a president right
now.
We just don't really have one.
This is a really unprecedented situation where we don't particularly know who the
Commander-in-Chief of the United States is.
Seems to me, Megan, we're basically without a president right now.
Is he still the president?
Who is the president of the United States?
Well, here's.
Well, yeah, it's, we don't have one.
And this is.
So strange as that.
Not really.
And everybody just kind of knows that and we're all just kind of accepting it because
there's a machine that's running our country.
He wasn't fit to be the nominee for an election in November, but apparently he's fit to
be president of the United States until January.
To anybody with the slightest touch of Asperger's, there's no way to go along with this.
It's just it doesn't make any logical sense.
What I've been assured privately is that there is a team running the White House
far better than Joe Biden and that I'm supposed to be elated because of the
high competency of the team that has effectively replaced the president.
Now, these are levels of self-deception and self-justification that I just can't
participate in.
And it's not our president.
That's a tweet that's been sent out by one of the foremost major journalists
that people actually know their full name.
But what's fascinating is that this is what I've called an anti-interesting
event.
The media is absolutely pathologically uninterested.
And the idea that we're in a half war with Russia and we don't know who the
commander in chief is at a functional level given the tiny window that we might
have if nuclear weapons were used.
That's the level that things are currently at.
And I just thought it might be nice for a few minutes to talk about the
evolution of consciousness in terms of government systems and what people
accept as reality at any given time.
I talk a lot on this channel about the American Revolution and documents like
the Declaration of Independence because I think they're really important markers
in modern human history of the evolution of the concept of rights and
liberties and freedoms and how people thought about these things over time.
I think it's very important to understand that so we can understand where we
are right now.
And you know what they say about people who don't learn their history.
They're doomed to repeat.
There's a lot of things we don't want to repeat.
They don't think people realize that.
And so one of the modern criticisms that I see quite often and especially
lately for America's founding fathers is this idea that it's all now
been boiled down to they were just a bunch of wealthy merchant class people
who didn't want to have to pay their taxes.
So it's either that or they just didn't do enough.
There are more things that needed to be changed and they only changed
so many things and it wasn't enough.
But I feel like these hindsight arguments don't really recognize the consciousness
level, the mindset of where people were at at the time.
It's like that scene out of The Matrix where Agent Smith says they tried
to make a utopia, but it didn't work.
It was designed to be a perfect human world where everyone would be happy.
It was a disaster.
No one would accept the program.
They were already changing so many things that it's a surprise that it took
and didn't actually go backwards into something much, much worse,
because that has happened multiple times in the past where they've tried
to make big changes and the big changes didn't work out.
And so the things swung back into an even worse tyranny than the one
they were trying to have a revolution against.
This is just a really hard.
I'm listening to myself at it and I just I feel like I need to add
something to try to clarify it, but it's a really hard thing to try to explain.
So I don't know if this is going to come across well or not.
When you look around today at some of the things that people accept,
apathetically accept as OK, as true, not just as true, but as OK.
All right.
Then you really fully let that sink in and you go back
and look at history again through that lens, you start to recognize
like we're lucky we even got this far.
OK, that is what you start to recognize.
I mean, there has been so many crazy, ridiculous, superstitious,
nonsensical things that have been fully full on, not just believed
by a majority of people, but acted upon as if that were true throughout time.
It's pretty amazing.
We need food and water to survive.
But if full out settles on your food, the food itself isn't harmed
or made radioactive since radiation only damages living tissue.
You simply remove the fallout particles using everyday methods of food preparation,
feeling, wiping or washing.
Full outs followed accidentally with food or in drinking water.
What do you know, immediate harm?
So that is what I'm trying to get across here.
Like we're lucky we got this far at all on these concepts.
So so I just don't think people recognize the level that things were at
and the things that led to an American Declaration of Independence in the first place.
Just throwing the tea in the harbor was a major act of defiance that today
you probably think, oh, whatever, they just threw some tea in the harbor.
You might get arrested for that.
But this is something that they debated over for days and days
beforehand for hours and hours.
There was much terror over making this decision because they knew that it would
be considered treason and that they could all be rounded up and killed for it.
So it wasn't just like a little idea someone had to be funny as a prank.
They debated over this for a very long while before it finally came down
to that decision being made.
And it was seen as a major act of treason.
And America and Great Britain are revocably linked.
The entire framework of America's existence is taken from its fight
for independence from the British crown specifically
and a British aristocracy system that was insulating that crown.
And so the American Declaration of Independence against King George
the Third came infamously complete with a long train of abuses,
which is described in specific detail as repeated injuries and usurpations,
all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.
And they capitalized the word tyranny.
So the capital T tyranny that the colonies were suffering
at the hands of the British crown included all the things we learned
about back in grade school, things like refusing to ascend to laws necessary
for the public good, forbidding governors to pass laws of immediate importance,
which then amounted to large districts of people's representation
in their government just basically becoming void.
Representative houses of government were being dissolved repeatedly
for opposing the king's invasion on people's rights.
King was obstructing justice literally by making judges dependent upon
the crowns will alone for their tenure of office and for their salary.
King erected a multitude of new offices and swarms of officers
to harass people and eat out their substance, quartered large bodies of armed troops
and kept a standing army in the colonies in times of peace
without legislative consent, which they wanted the colonies to pay for.
And they rendered that military independent of and superior
to the civil power in the colonies.
They also accused the crown of giving British soldiers mock trials
that would protect them from punishment for anything they did
while they were on colonial soil where arbitrary power sits upon her breeze
and throne and governs with an iron sector.
It is a hardship not to be endured.
Cut off the colonies from trade with the whole rest of the world
and impose taxes on them repeatedly without their consent.
Deprived in many cases of trial by jury, some of them were being
transported across the seas to have trials in England, took away their
charters, abolished their laws, fundamentally altering their forms
of government, inciting domestic insurrections among the people,
plundering the seas, ravaging the coast, burning towns, destroying people's lives.
It gets pretty serious there at the end.
But these are all phrases directly out of the American Declaration of Independence.
And so that's the point it got under King George III, where they declared
we are dissolving the bonds between us in a very alchemical language
that is used in the Declaration of Independence.
The bonds are being dissolved.
But it was over a hundred years earlier in 1641, the year before the English
Civil War officially broke out under King Charles I, that the House of
Commons and the British Parliament of the day drew up what was then
an unprecedented document which they had delivered to their king
and also directed to be printed and handed out to people directly,
if I recall correctly, called the Grand Remonstrance, wherein they laid out
in very great detail and for many, many more pages, their own version
of the long train of abuses that they felt they were suffering under
Charles I's rule.
And this one is 204 items in all.
So there's 27 things on the Declaration of Independence, right?
Whole new country was founded on that.
That's a list of 27.
The British Parliament in 1641 came up with a list of 204 things,
which I am not going to read all of that to you because it would probably
take me an hour.
It's a very long document, very detailed of all the things that they
said were happening at that time.
And if you read through that list, though, you will find that within
it are direct corollaries to the long train of abuses that were laid
out in the American Declaration of Independence and also the first ten
amendments in the Bill of Rights as well, which is part of what went
into the decision, I think, to come up with a Bill of Rights to begin with.
Because too many times they had seen these kinds of things going on in the history.
And there is a huge difference, though, between and it's not just
the number of items, there's a huge difference between the American
Declaration of Independence and the Grand Remonstrance in that
in the Declaration, they directly call out the king.
They directly say, this is the king's tyranny.
The king is directly responsible for these abuses.
Whereas in the Grand Remonstrance of 1641, they continually
have to defer it to the king's evil or venomous counselors.
They don't directly accuse the king himself.
So first of all, that is a difference in consciousness
that took place over that time, because at the time of 1641,
no one was directly calling out the king and saying anything to him.
De Quincey pointed out in his essay on the falsification of English history
that the king was not allowed to ever be personally wrong.
And people believed that.
That was actually a belief that was held by people.
As God's representative on earth, it's not possible for him
to be personally directly wrong.
And I've read Pete Writers of the Time talking about this,
that this is part of the system at that time, that the king cannot be wrong.
It's part of it's baked into the government system of that time in England.
I read this guy talking about how the king could still be held responsible,
sort of, because if he orders somebody to kill someone else for him,
then that guy can be held to the account of the law.
But still not the king, though.
See, that's just not how anything would ever work today.
But in the 1640s, that's exactly how it worked.
If the king ordered somebody to kill someone else,
he cannot be held liable for that.
The person who does the killing for the king,
that's the guy that will be held responsible for that,
because the king literally cannot.
That is the level that they took this to the power
that that system was allowed to wield was that level of power over everyone.
And I just don't think people recognize that that's where
that's where the system came from.
We had to move past that as a people and recognize, like, OK, that's
that's not right, though.
It's not right that the king can't be held responsible for his own behavior.
Like, but that's the level it was at.
I don't think people realize things like I didn't I didn't know this.
I had to go dig in some very old history books
that are written in very old English to find this out.
OK, but this is what people believed.
So that's how the system was run.
So that's where the American colonists were coming from, a system like that
where you have kings that are just they're doing whatever the hell
that they really want, and it's blatant and it's in everyone's face
and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
So when the American colonists said the king directly has done this,
that was pretty groundbreaking and it's hard to believe today
looking back on it, how groundbreaking that concept was.
But it broke the freaking government.
It broke the colonies away from the British crown.
It broke everything for them to say, you have no power over me.
You have no power over me.
So I want to go over some of these things that are on the Grand Remontrance.
I've summed it up. I'm not going to read you 204 things.
But I want you to see some of what was going on in 1641
so you can see the progression of how much worse things were
like 130 years earlier that led to the English Civil War
that led to a king being beheaded in England.
So the very first item on the Grand Remontrance
details how the king dissolved parliament and the repeated
dissolving of parliament is mentioned multiple times
throughout this document, several more, at least four more times.
And that's because King Charles the first did that a lot.
He dissolved parliament at one point for so long during his reign
that it's actually referred to in history books as the 11 years tyranny
wherein the king ruled over the nation from 1629 to 1640 without parliament,
which is the longest such interval in modern English history that a king has done that.
And this is somebody again, this is an absolute monarch
who believes himself ordained by God and therefore he can do whatever he wants
without having to answer to literally any other person on earth
because there's no one above him to stop him or check his power
unless God shows up because there is no human person on earth
is going to do anything to stop this guy.
He's the king and because in their system, he cannot be wrong.
Charles the first past declarations that made petitions
passed by parliament destructive to themselves, as specifically mentioned
with the 1628 petition of right, which they issued based on Magna Carta
says the position of right, which was granted in full parliament
blasted with an illegal declaration to make it destructive to itself,
to the power of parliament, to the liberty of the subject
and to that purpose printed with it.
And the petition made of no use but to show the bold and presumptuous
injustice of such ministers as durst break the laws
and suppress the liberties of the kingdom after they had been
so solemnly and evidently declared.
So we try to declare our rights in this petition of rights,
which is what that document is.
And it was blasted with an illegal declaration
to make it destructive of itself, and then they blame that on ministers.
King Charles the first raised a standing army amongst the people
and quartered large numbers of troops all over the country.
He also confiscated the arms of the trained citizen militias.
And then he stockpiled all of the country's gunpowder
in the Tower of London and put a price on it so high
that people couldn't afford to purchase it.
So he effectively left, especially the poor people of the time,
unable to defend themselves.
He is accused of violating the rights of habeas corpus
and trial by jury as first embodied in the 1215 Magna Carta.
And there are a whole bunch of mentionings of jurisdictions
being stepped out of bounds on all kinds of pretended courts
just all over the place.
And he also had people jailed without bail
and left some people to die in prison for charges.
They were not allowed any legal recourse to refute.
And the courts were also loaded with judges and juries
that were favorable to the crown and would do the king's bidding.
And speaking of speech, Charles the first forbade people
to even speak of parliaments, which I'm sure some of them
wanted to since they didn't have one for 11 years.
They also accuse the crown of publishing, quote,
untrue and scandalous declarations to espouse parliament's proceedings
and some of their members unjustly to make them odious
and color the violence which was used against them
with proclamations set out to the same purpose.
So now they're accusing the system of publishing propaganda
against parliament outright.
Then you've got so many items on this list regarding draining
the finances from the country in ways that just make taxing.
People without their consent look like a cakewalk.
Almost like the king just went and made himself a checklist
of all the possible ways to take every cent of wealth
and suck it out of the country for himself.
He not only continued to collect something called tonnage
and poundage dues, which was in direct violation
of the Petition of Right of 1628, but worse,
he went out of his way to actually bring back
sometimes ancient customs as a new means of taxing people
in addition to creating new unheard of taxes,
things like ship money tax, which was placed on merchants
supposedly to help guard the seas, but then they were left unguarded
and many merchants were attacked by Turkish pirates.
Their ships seized and they were forced into slavery.
Charles I was also accused of requiring excessive taxes,
including raising the prices in the official book of rates,
which was a thing they had that set the value of goods
just to garner higher taxes.
And some goods were even taxed to the point
that the tax became more money than the value of the goods being taxed.
Charles was selling monopolies for a premium
to certain producers of common goods like salt, soap,
leather and wine, and then he would force ships
to take their goods to monopolize reports only.
He also he started giving people nighthoods
so that he could collect a nighthood fee on it.
And if you didn't show up to get your nighthood and pay your fee,
you would be put in jail.
Oh, and he was also selling government titles for money just outright.
And he's accused of purposely engaging in unwinnable wars
just to pass new taxes.
So not having a war for any other reason than that.
He also enlarged the boundaries of the royal forest
contrary to the Charter of the Forest of 1217,
which gave Freeman rights to access to parts of the forest.
So he enlarged the boundaries of the royal forest much, much larger
and then would find people for using it.
He was also accused of using something called the Statute of Improvement
to take large quantities of common grounds without anyone's consent.
On top of all of that, he also began attempting to just force people
to make loans to him, including a forced loan on the city of London,
wherein he had a list drawn up of the names of wealthy alderman
that he deemed fit to lend the King money.
And when the alderman on the list refused to pay out that loan,
they were sent to prison.
It also says the seizing of the money and the bullion in the mint
and the whole kingdom like to be robbed at once.
Went in there and took it.
Double the taxes.
And in some ways it got to the same point as it did with King John
over 400 years earlier.
Triple the taxes.
Which many of you will know from the Disney Robin Hood cartoon
was described as the worst.
He's going to be known as John the First.
Before the passage of the Magna Carta,
it had been written that, quote,
many kings made frequent encroachments upon the liberties of their people,
but especially King John made use of so many illegal devices
to drain them of money.
As soon as he was king,
John turned on the good nobles of the kingdom,
stole their goods, and drove them out of England.
But weiried with intolerable oppressions,
they resolved to oblige the king to grant them their liberties.
And so they put out the Magna Carta,
and the Charter of the Forest was part of that,
and then they released it separately.
Then they released the Magna Carta again in 1225.
In fact, they released the Magna Carta or versions of it
or things based on it like the 1628 Petition of Right
multiple times throughout the years after Magna Carta was put down.
And they were trying to make gains with that each time.
So I thought it had only been put out in 1215
until I did more research and realized this,
that they just re-release it when it's necessary.
So maybe they should think about that again today.
But once it circled back around to Charles the First,
forcing loans on people and knighthoods with fees,
and people didn't pay it, they were jailed without bail,
and you're starting to get to a really pretty dark place
in the history of your system there and your monarchy.
Violence took the place of law.
Extortion was praiseworthy.
Justice was an abomination and innocence a crime.
And so it was really pretty bad.
He was just doing whatever the hell he wanted
because who's going to tell him he can't?
There's literally no one that can tell him he's wrong.
It's a backbone of that system at that time.
Oh, and because the king in England is also the,
quote, supreme governor of the Church of England,
he's the head of the church,
and the crown and the church are united in that way.
Instead of a separation of church and state,
you have a unification of church and state.
The crown was intermingled with all the religious
and spiritual aspects of the church.
So it was considered a royal subject of the realm's
religious duty to say prayers for the royals
as part of their church services.
So they're literally required to pray
for the crown at this time.
So they have a spiritual tax basically
that they are required to give a prayer,
a spiritual energy for that crown, for the king.
But on top of that, Charles I also imposed new oaths
on both clergy and laypeople for, quote,
the maintenance of their own tyranny,
according to the grand remonstrance.
And he had new liturgy drawn up to be read in church
that went contrary to parliament,
to the people's rights and liberties,
and to the established laws of England.
And if the ministers refused to take these new oaths
and lead the people in these new prayers,
not only was an army raised to attempt to force them to do so,
but they faced censures of a suspension
and excommunication if they would not.
I mean, there's even one in here that simply says, quote,
the restraint of the liberties of the subjects
and their habitation trades and other interests.
So that's just your whole life.
Your whole life is being screwed with by this guy in a costume.
I mean, that's what's up in that system.
Check this out.
This is by the 1730s.
The legislature of England wrote the London Journal
is the only power in the sole authority in England.
The people have no voice over this supreme authority.
The claim that they do is to speak of rebellion
and of taking the government into their own hands.
The power of the people extends only
to the constituent act of establishing the government.
When the government is settled
and the power of legislation given to a body
chosen represents community,
then the original power of the people
and their collective body ceases.
For the sole power and the sole authority
is invested in the person's chosen,
who are to judge and act for all of us
in a matter relating to legislation.
The London Journal defended corruption on one occasion
as a fact of modern life,
like the standing army and the riot act.
It was a result of the present circumstances of the world,
the natural condition of human affairs.
Wow.
So when you look at the Declaration of Independence
and the Bill of Rights,
it's pretty easy to start matching up all the ways
in which these inherent rights had a very long history
of being violated by English kings.
And so this is why you have a declaration
that begins by defining what government is
and what its purpose is
and why it's instituted among men
and that it's only legitimate
if it's by the consent of the governed
and that there is no other way
for government to be legitimate
except by the consent of the governed.
And do you know why?
It's because you're not a royal subject
in the United States of America.
You're a citizen.
It's not the same thing.
A royal subject,
if you look up the definition of the word subject,
a subject is that which is placed under the authority,
dominion, control, or influence of something else
or someone else.
Specifically, one who is under the authority of a ruler
and is governed by his laws,
one who owes allegiance to a sovereign.
The subject must obey his prince
because God commands it.
Human laws require it.
So if you're a subject,
you are not consenting to anything.
You don't have to.
Subjects don't have to consent.
It's not required.
You're not, you're just in that control.
You do not have the concept of consent
is not there in that definition.
You are placed under the authority of,
you are born into a system
where you just tell you what to do
and you do it.
That's how this works.
When you're a subject, that's how it works.
So I just think it's important
for people to recognize
where we've been
and to remember that's the thought process
of people's minds at that time.
It was a big deal to write the grand remonstrance
even if they tap danced around
blaming the things they were saying
on the king himself.
It was still a really unprecedented unheard of thing
to write that document at that time.
And I guess they handled the situation
the way they did
because they just could not figure out
any other way to get the guy to stop.
That's the only time in British history
that a king has been beheaded.
And to get to the point
in 1776
where they're writing the American Declaration
of Independence
and they straight say,
King, you're tyrannical.
We're not going to,
we're dissolving our bonds with you.
We're just not going to have it anymore, period.
This is over.
We're breaking up with you.
You want a divorce, you know?
That was huge.
That was just,
that was not a heard of thing.
So consciousness wise,
we evolved at that point.
That's an evolution of belief.
The people believed up until that point
as colonists,
they were royal subjects of the king.
And after that point,
the bonds were dissolved
and they said,
no, this is the only way
we will legitimize a government
is under these conditions.
So you can't do that to us anymore.
And it changed everything.
And yes, there was a war fought over that.
But if we don't remember all of these things
and we don't actually remember what happened,
we have a very real situation ahead of us here
in this new digital overlaid society
of going back to something like that
in a new form of digital tyranny.
And it might not be kings,
it might be corporations this time,
but it's not,
it's really not much different.
You know,
the consequences of something you say
on a social media platform
is going to affect you
and in physical reality,
then the rights need to work the same way.
We need to have those rights
be upheld on here as well.
Because they're trying to do something now
that is just,
it's very one sided
and it does not respect individual rights
and freedoms in the ways that it should.
And if we're going to live in a world
that's half online and half off,
then the half that's online
needs to match the half
that's off in terms of people's rights.
They're inherent rights,
the ones we're born with,
we didn't get them because
they were written down on pieces of paper.
Those pieces of paper,
all these many hundreds of years
are just reminding the people in power
how this actually works.
Today, you wouldn't think it's okay
for a king to do any of the things
that I just said
on that very long list
of crazy things that he was doing.
But at the time,
there were a lot of people
who lived in that situation
who did think it was okay
because they were under the misapprehension
that simply because
the guy's name is king whatever
and they put a crown on his head,
it means he could do whatever the hell he wants
and no one can hold him responsible
personally for anything that he does.
And I'm not just talking about loyalists
who benefited like the actual people
that were part of the aristocracy
who benefited.
There were people that were
just such mental children
that they refused to question
the reality with which they were presented
on whether or not that's real or not.
Or just the guy in a costume
is taking all your money
in every possible way he can
and if you don't like it
puts you in jail
so you can rot and die.
I mean, that's pretty insane, right?
But at the time, people thought that was okay.
And today we literally have a congressman
asking people on social media
what will it take for them
to withdraw their consent?
I mean, it is just,
it is unreal the time
that we are living in right now.
It is unreal.
Mr. Speaker, I came here
to make sure our Republic doesn't die
by unanimous consent in empty chamber
and I request a recorded vote.
If you stop to actually think
about the things that are happening right now,
it's mind-blowing
that this is the level we're at.
I'm just going to play out the rest of his speech.
Just listen to the rest
of what he sat in front of everyone
and said out loud, okay?
And I love you guys.
I'll talk to you soon.
Can we be honest with the American people
about what's going on here?
This is political theater.
I'm going to call out both sides right here.
It's all posturing.
It's fake fighting.
We all know where it ends up.
This is Groundhog Day.
I don't care if the Democrat is the speaker
or Republican is the speaker.
We always get a CR in September
and then we get an omnibus.
Sometimes there's a twist on that.
We might get the omnibus before Christmas,
but if we're not good,
it comes after Christmas.
But that's what's going to happen.
And in the meantime,
it's political theater.
It's good theater.
We've got great writers.
I wish they just come up with a new plot.
It's the same plot every fiscal year.
What should we be doing?
It's already been discussed.
We should have done 12 separate bills.
But again, whether Democrats are in control
or Republicans are in control,
we never do the 12 separate bills.
Why do we always spend
at least as much as we did last year
and why do we never cut spending?
It's because Democrats want to grow
the welfare state
and Republicans want to grow
the military-industrial complex.
And we're eventually going to get together
and they're both going to go up.
I guarantee it.
And both parties are just fine
letting the bureaucrats do their thing,
which should be our thing,
according to Article 1 Section 8
in the Constitution.
We are empowered with these things.
Most important of the things we do
is the funding.
And that's the big lever we have.
You know, I've sat through now
almost two years of hearings
in this Congress
where we've exposed lies at the CDC,
shortcuts at the FDA,
unconstitutional gun bans at the ATF,
over prosecution of January 6ers
at the DOJ,
targeting common citizens at the FBI,
spying by the NSA,
illegal mandates for livestock by the USDA,
targeting plant vaccine
or transgenic plant vaccine at the NSF
and censorship,
the censorship industrial complex
of which the NSF is part of,
automobile kill switch at the DOT.
Now these are all things I think
most Democrats are just fine
with this kind of totalitarian state
that the bureaucrats are pushing on us.
But Republicans at least pretend
to be against these things.
But what are we going to do this September?
We're going to fund every freaking one
of those things that we have exposed.
That is the tool that we have is the funding.
Why are we funding things we don't like?
We don't have to.
Well, it's because we're addicted to spending.
And this doesn't do anything
about the addiction at all.
So let me touch on one point too here
that I think is important.
A couple of years ago
or a summer and a half ago,
I suppose now we did something
where we allowed the debt limit to be increased.
But as a condition of that,
we said if you do a CR
that last past April 30th,
everything's going to get cut one percent.
And that to me seemed like
at least a little tinge
of fiscal responsibility was creeping in.
But now I notice that this CR,
instead of going one year
and giving us time to do
the 12 appropriations bills,
is going to go six months.
Now let me tell you what's going to happen
because this goes six months.
Number one, it ends in March 28th,
on March 28th.
Well, the automatic cuts happen on April 30th
if the CR went past that.
So that is exactly why the speaker chose a six month CR
is so we don't have even the chance,
a threat to this town.
It's a threat of a one percent cut.
We don't want to even,
this is like t-ball.
The one percent cut is on the T
and Republicans won't even swing at it.
So instead, we're going to do a six month CR
instead of a one year CR.
That sets up this another crisis next spring
where we can do another pretend fight
sometime around March.
And that fight will,
it'll be the same fight
regardless of who wins the presidency
and who's in charge of the Senate and the House
and we're basically going to get pretty much the same result.
But that's six months from now.
In the meantime, we can kick the can down the road.
All of these things that we've exposed
and all of these hearings
are going to continue to get funded.
But wait, there's a bright, shiny object on this CR.
I've never seen one of these.
I have never seen a bright, shiny object attached
to one of these must pass bills.
Oh, wait, no.
It actually happens.
There always is a bright, shiny object,
a bobble, if you will.
It's a little something to get excited about.
This save act is going to save us all.
Right?
And by the way, this is good political theater.
I do like this part of it
that we're going to see almost every Democrat cast a vote
so that illegals can vote in our elections.
I mean, that's pretty clever on the part of our speaker
to set that up, make you all take that vote.
But here's what he's going to do
after you take that vote.
He's going to take it off.
The bright, shiny object goes away.
It's Lucy in the football again.
And the American public is all revved up.
Yeah, we're going to get to save that.
We're going to save these elections.
We're going to stop the illegals from voting.
Really?
How are you going to do that in like six weeks?
I think they're already registered
if they're going to vote.
Some of them probably already voted.
This save act ain't going to save anything.
And particularly because it ain't ever going to become law.
It's a false promise to get all the Republicans half pregnant.
And then you're going to get fully pregnant
by the end of September when you vote for this CR.
It's not going to have this...
I mean, I hate to break this to you.
I mean, the Democrats already know this.
I'm not telling you anything special.
I hate to break it to the Republicans.
You ain't getting the save act.
It is not going to stay on this bill.
Why?
Because we're going to cave.
We're going to cave.
Is it a fight worth having?
Absolutely.
It's a fight worth having.
Make those Democrats say they want illegals to vote.
Make them take that vote as many times as you can.
And then make them go to the ballot box in November.
But that's what it is, is political theater folks.
We all know where it ends up.
We've seen it.
I've been here 12 years.
I've seen it 12 times.
I refuse to be a thespian in this failure theater.
And with that, I yield back.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence
can live only as long as they are enshrined
in our hearts and minds.
Whether we will preserve and extend popular liberty
is a very serious question.
But after all, it is a very old question.
The man who signed the Declaration faced it.
So did those who wrote the Constitution.
But each succeeding generation has faced it.
And so far, each succeeding generation
has answered it in the affirmative.
I would like to solve the puzzle.