reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: People have to understand, our democracy is being taken away from us, and we only have about a year. You know, just to be clear about this. And people you know, you're doing a great job, and a lot of other people are doing a good job to tell people what is actually happening in this country. But make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy and democracy completely leaves us. And we're looking at the at the election in in in in 2026. And Donald Trump knows, he knows that in a free and fair election, he will lose. He will lose the house. The house will flip and will become into democratic hands. There'll be committee chairs that'll be able to hold hearings. And this is the last thing he wants. So this little, you know, these ICE agents and the National Guard, and now he's called the military in from all over the world to talk to them about don't be surprised when polling booths are surrounded by American military in the guise of making sure that the elections are fair and that nobody is tampering with anything. And when you see violence breaking out, which there will be protests, there will be inciting violence, there'll be some violence, and they'll keep back then they'll you'll see the commandeering of voting machines, ballot boxes to make sure that that election is secure. Well, what that means is that he will then commandeer the election. So we have to make the public absolutely aware that their democracy is being taken from them, and we have to do everything we can to make sure people understand that. People don't It's a vague term, democracy. It's like, what does that mean? The constitution, we don't know what that means. People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs, they care about their health care, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process. All these things will be taken away from And we have to educate the public that this is what's happening right now in America.

An investor is questioning if the concept of American exceptionalism is valid. They ask if investors are being overly pessimistic about the U.S. economy, or if the country is entering a period of fundamental change requiring reassessment. Speaker 1 responds that America has been significantly and revolutionarily changing since its inception. They mention the U.S. started as an agricultural society with high promises it didn't deliver on, citing the Constitution counting Black people as three-fifths of a person and using only male pronouns. They note it took until the 19th amendment in February 1920 to pass.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 are at a location in Florida, discussing the presence of noncitizens on federal property. Speaker 1 asks why noncitizens are allowed in the US while American citizens are not. Speaker 0 questions who is prohibiting them from being there and thanks Speaker 1 for their question. Speaker 1 reiterates their question and Speaker 0 explains that as Americans, they have the right to be on a public bridge under the first amendment.

Some believe America is not teaching children what it is and represents, and younger parents are unsure if appreciating America is right for modern children. America was never that great, and American flags can signal white supremacy. There is a warning of an eradication of American memory and spirit. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. America is freedom, including freedom of speech, religion, and enterprise. Ours was the first revolution to reverse the course of life and bring freedom to the world. We, the people, are free. Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it'll end.

The group attempts to create a founding document guaranteeing individual rights. Ideas include free healthcare, internet, DoorDash, guns, and brisket. One person believes everyone has the right to smoke weed in public. The group debates freedom of speech, with concerns about disagreement and offensive language. Religion is discussed, with conflicting views on Christianity. The right to bear arms is supported, with suggestions for fully automatic machine guns and A-10 Warthogs, countered by calls for common-sense gun laws. Additional rights suggested are drag queen story hours, free housing, and the right to protest only when a Democrat is in office. Other suggestions include free phones, debit cards, and the right to pay exorbitant amounts for healthcare. Ultimately, they try to focus on one or two agreed-upon principles. One person suggests everyone has the right to do anything except what others disagree with. The video is a parody by the Babylon Bee, sponsored by the Freedom Forum, which promotes the five freedoms of the First Amendment.

I have learned from my parents' experiences, but I prefer not to discuss it on camera. I have no interest in politics and prioritize my family and becoming a teacher. The government is considering changing the age of consent for different types of sex. We are eager to move forward with this change. I admire China's ability to enforce their dictatorship, even though it goes against our fundamental rights. This creates a loophole where the majority can override the rights of the minority.

The video features a person asking various police officers to recite the five parts of the First Amendment. Most officers decline to answer, citing various reasons. Some mention freedom of speech as one part of the First Amendment. The conversation ends with a discussion about upholding the Constitution and the responsibilities of police officers. The person asking the question expresses disappointment at the officers' responses. The video highlights the importance of understanding and upholding constitutional rights. Translation: El video muestra a una persona preguntando a varios oficiales de policía que reciten las cinco partes de la Primera Enmienda. La mayoría de los oficiales se niegan a responder, citando varias razones. Algunos mencionan la libertad de expresión como una parte de la Primera Enmienda. La conversación termina con una discusión sobre la defensa de la Constitución y las responsabilidades de los oficiales de policía. La persona que hace la pregunta expresa decepción ante las respuestas de los oficiales. El video destaca la importancia de comprender y defender los derechos constitucionales.

According to the speaker, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, roughly 15 or 16 years old, equates money with freedom of expression, allowing billionaires to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. The speaker believes this is the Supreme Court's worst decision. As a result of the decision, Elon Musk spent $270 million to elect Trump as president. The speaker believes it's absurd for one person to have that much influence. Someone spent $1.5 billion on the Harris campaign over a couple of months. The speaker clarifies that this issue is not limited to Republicans.

"What greater fight for freedom is there than to have control over your own body? And up until the point where your children are 18, you get to make that decision for them too. If not, if that is not the case, then you don't have freedom. If you don't decide what's going into your child, then your child is property of the US government. If they can inject your children beyond your will and there's nothing you can do about it, they can't get the education your taxes are paying for, then we have been reduced to nothing more than farm animals being lined up by Farmer Joe and vaccinated at will with any crazy technology they can come up with like mRNA technology which we know has been disastrous and skipped its safety trials. We are fighting to put all that to an end."

Crime is a problem that we want to address in order to protect our families, friends, and communities. Americans are being stripped of their rights, but this is their land. The Apache people resisted, and we should remember Thomas Jefferson, who was a protester. Our rights come from God, while privileges come from the government.

Children need to go to school and learn about the world. A 13-year-old guesses the Bill of Rights is about costs. Another child recites the First Amendment but struggles to explain it in their own words. The conversation shifts to the 2010 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, with a child explaining that corporations have the same rights as people, leading to unlimited spending on candidates. The speaker acknowledges the children's knowledge on these topics. Translation: The children discuss the importance of education, struggle to explain the Bill of Rights, and touch on the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, highlighting the influence of corporations in politics.

In schools, they pressure us to learn about Islam and other cultures, but I want to learn about my own culture and beliefs. I'm proud to be English. They don't teach us about the Bill of Rights or our own history. In school, they were teaching us about Islam, about Prophet Mohammed, and all their ideologies. They barely mention Christianity. They don't tell you the negative aspects. When I tried to question it, I would get in trouble and even suspended from school for being "racist." I was just questioning an ideology that, in my opinion, isn't right. They're trying to take away my free speech at school and silence me for discussing the wrongs of Islam. They only say Islam is a peaceful religion, but their book says otherwise.

Character, compassion, decency, science, and democracy are all at stake in this election. It's not just about who we are as a nation, but also about who we aspire to be. The speaker asks a 17-year-old how old they are, implying that their vote is crucial.

The year was 1871, and while the events of this year have been purposefully hidden from the masses, 1871 must never be forgotten. Much like Vatican City and the City Of London, Washington, D. C. Has its own sovereignty. Basically, D.C., City Of London, and Vatican City are totally separate territories from the nations in which they reside. Vatican City is technically enclaved within Rome, outfitted with its own special police force and political structure, the same way the City Of London is situated within the city called London, and it has its own flag, crest, police force, ceremonial armed forces, and a mayor. And sure, there are states within The United States that have their own constitution and distinctive flags, but I think most people you'd ask would know that Washington, D. C. Isn't a state. Most folks would tell you that Washington, D. C. Is where our laws are made, where our politicians congregate, and where our White House resides. But on the D. C. Flag, which is said to have been reflective of George Washington's coat of arms, there are three stars. And I wonder, are those stars representative of the three city states that exist as corporate entities outside of their respective nations? Vatican City, the religious hub, the city of London, the banking central, and Washington, D. C, the military leg of the empire. Being its own city state, DC has its own police force that shares a direct link with Congress, its own mayor, and its own set of laws. But our founding father certainly didn't set it up like this. So how did it come to be? The year was 1871. The US was going through a lot of turmoil. The nation was bankrupt and vulnerable after the civil war, and the London bankers, which included the notorious Rothschild family, were ready to make a deal with congress to remedy that turmoil. Turmoil, I might add, that is suspected that the bankers had a hand in creating in the first place. At any rate, these bankers made a lot of credit available in the aftermath of the civil war as a means to, one, fight Lincoln's greenback after he was murdered, with some theorizing that part of the motivation for his assassination came from his push to privatize the monetary system. The second reason that the bankers made so much credit available was to collect on the interest from those who desperately needed the money, which would be the United States government at the time. Now, this was nothing new, this was practice as old as time. Well, as old as Mystery Babylon. Not much has really changed since the days of Babylon, not the usury, not the debt slavery, not even the iconography. Passed by Congress, the Act of 1871 provided a government for the 10 mile parcel of land known as the District Of Columbia, allowing Washington, D. C. To act as a corporation outside of the original Constitution of The United States. So, okay, why does the Washington, D. C. Constitution have nothing to do with The United States constitution? Why exactly is Washington, D. C. Totally separate from the rest of The United States? Why does it need to be separate from The United States, as a separate territory at the epicenter of the Virgin Mary, tucked right between Virginia and Maryland? The Act of 1871 changed our country's founding fathers' original constitution for The United States for America to the constitution of The United States Of America. If you blink, you might miss it because it's a mixture of impactful wording and some weird capitalization thrown in there that pretty means nothing to the average person upon initial inspection. But these subtle changes are a huge deal in the realm of legislation. Compounded with these minor changes was clever marketing of the act as a way to unify the territorial government for the entire District of Columbia. The aforementioned are contributing factors as to how such a major act flew under the radar, ultimately overturning the United States Constitutional Republic. Since 1871, the federal government has usurped nearly all of the power that was formerly held in the hands of the people. But how on earth was Congress able to pass a separate constitution and incorporate The United States? A bunch of attorneys have contacted me about this subject, explaining it to me, thank you for everyone who's done that, but let me break it down to you in a way that won't make you just totally fall asleep. A corporation, by definition, is a legal entity from its owners. A corporation protects its owners from personal liability for corporate debts and obligations within limits. So was the Act of 1871 as harmless as some claim just an act to provide a government for the District Of Columbia and nothing more? We can answer that question by simply stepping back and taking a look at the dominoes that fell after this act was passed, and asking the question: Who benefited from this piece of legislation? Is the Act of 1871 the reason why Congress passed the sixteenth amendment, which allowed the federal government to tax individual personal income regardless of state population? Is the Act of 1871 the reason why the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed, handing over America's gold and silver reserves and ultimately the total control of America's economy to the Federal Reserve Bank. Think about it. A private corporation established their private bank, acting as the central bank of The United States, But it isn't even a government institution, but a privately owned banking system. Is it a coincidence that social security numbers started being assigned in 1935, social security numbers being the nine digit numbers given to every U. S. Citizen, and used for income tracking and taxation purposes. Ultimately, individual income taxes have been the primary source of revenue for the U. S. Federal government since the 1950s. These moves make a lot of sense when examined through the lens of The United States as a corporation and its citizens as employees, a corporate government asset before they even go through puberty. But still, throughout all this time, there was a promise that the American dollar was actually worth something. Something tangible, not just the confidence to exchange it for goods and services. A dollar was worth one thirty fifth an ounce of gold. But then President Richard Nixon came along and screwed that up for us. Severing the final link between the dollar and gold in 1971. In other words, he took the dollar off the gold standard once and for all. Steadily, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined while federal and consumer debt has increased. Currently, we're witnessing the culmination of all of these decisions, and it ain't pretty. We're one bad flu season removed from Weimar Republic wheelbarrow money. So who would you say benefited from the Act of 1871? The average US citizen, or the bankers who incorporated The United States, who have been buying politicians ever since? The same Federal Reserve who serves absolutely no real function except stealing the purchasing power of your sixty plus hour work week and then redistributing those funds to destroy your rights and enslave you on your own soil. Hey, just like they did back in Babylon. It's the same folks using the same debt slavery system, time after time. When will we learn that debt with interest is a system of perpetual debt, and is continually passed on to the people beneath, until until the debt gap consumes all but those who own the debt? Well, like I said in the beginning of this video, the most pivotal year in United States history was never taught to me in schoolpublic or privateand never taught to me at a college level. But as Americans, it's so important that we not let this information die with our generation. One of the most important lessons you can teach your children is how to obtain their own freedomhow to identify when their freedoms are being taken from them, and how to demand those personal freedoms and liberties back, instead of waiting around for a hero in the form of a politician to represent them, to offer solutions. During this time, we've seen people of all ages crying out for change. And instead of focusing on the changes we could make that could fundamentally change The United States for the better, especially on an individual level, politicians are selling socialism and communism, aka more government control, to young people looking for an answer. And they beg for it because the future seems so bleak. Whether you play with paper or with digital money, the future will always be bleak if you're a debt slave. If before your foot even touches this earth, you're scanned into the system as an employee of this corporation who does not care about you one bit. The United States is still a great country, but it has its problems, and you know you can riot and loot and protest protest all all you you want. Want, But until the Federal Reserve is ended, until the Act of 1871 is torn into a thousand pieces and thrown into the wind, until the IRS is abolished, and until we move back to the gold standard, we have no chance at experiencing any iota of freedom.

The speaker claims they are attacked for not believing in democracy, but the most sacred right in the U.S. democracy is the First Amendment. They state that Kamala Harris wants to threaten the power of the government, and there is no First Amendment right to misinformation. The speaker believes big tech silences people, which is a threat to democracy. They want Democrats and Republicans to reject censorship and persuade one another by arguing about ideas. The speaker references yelling fire in a crowded theater as the Supreme Court test. They accuse others of wanting to kick people off Facebook for saying toddlers shouldn't get masks.

Speaker 0: In a rule of law, we should be protected from the government's immense power. The government can completely destroy us. Speaker 1: You don't even need to ask for permission, you can demonstrate. So your reaction is a bit childish. People have the right to demonstrate, especially when the government is acquiring so much power. Speaker 0: You still need to notify them? Speaker 1: Yes, you need to notify them, but even if you don't, you can still demonstrate. It's necessary, considering the measures we've taken. Demonstrating is the last line of defense for many people. It's complicated, but we can't let the police overpower peaceful protesters. It's not about political goals, I've allowed many demonstrations during the pandemic in all cities, because it's a right.

Do you know what else isn’t in the Constitution? Your right to vote, your right to marry, your right to privacy, and your right to a fair trial by your peers. There’s also no mention of women or their rights. While the Constitution is important, it is outdated.

The speaker states that many rights could be gone, including those related to unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th amendment, and the 6th amendment right to an attorney. The speaker mentions the first amendment and the second amendment, stating they are in favor of the second amendment and do not believe anyone's guns should be taken away. The speaker claims someone wants to terminate the Constitution of the United States.

The conversation begins with the recitation of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The facilitator declares it well and moves on to what should come next as the “second most important principle of our nation.” Speaker 1 prematurely proposes “Guns.” The facilitator, Speaker 0, and others react with disbelief; Speaker 2 (Matt) mutters “Guns,” which prompts a back-and-forth about whether the second right should be firearms. The debate touches the idea that while free speech was just established, allowing guns might balance or enable more extreme speech. Speaker 1 questions the logic, while Speaker 2 suggests it “would kind of balance that out.” The group contemplates whether possessing guns could embolden people to say outrageous things. The discussion pivots to how to phrase the second amendment. The speakers consider the word choice, with humor about whether the amendment should simply be “Have guns.” The idea evolves toward a more nuanced concept: the right to bear arms. The dialogue expresses skepticism about a simplistic “guns” amendment but grows toward the notion of “bear arms” as the core concept. Speaker 3 approves, calling the phrasing “smart as hell.” Speaker 0 remains open to discussing guns but asserts the need to move on to a more pressing concern, noting Matt’s intensity. The exchange includes brief, playful exchanges about Matt’s origin in America and in what state, and the group weighs whether the concept makes sense or seems absurd. Ultimately, the debate coalesces around the phrase “Commitment to the right to bear arms.” In closing, Speaker 1 announces, “My work here is done,” and Speaker 2 remarks, “Wait. Matt, will we ever see you again?” to which Speaker 1 replies, “Depends on where you look.” The conversation thus ends with agreement that the second amendment should reflect a commitment to the right to bear arms, reframing the discussion from a literal “guns” proposal to a more precise emphasis on bearing arms as the core principle.

This country belongs to the people, who can change the government if needed. A student questions the right to overthrow the government, leading to a discussion after school. The teacher emphasizes following rules, even if they seem unfair. A student solves a problem differently but gets the correct answer, highlighting the importance of following procedures. The student struggles with fitting in and following rules, but ultimately decides to live life on their own terms.

James Madison is drafting the first ten amendments. The first amendment includes freedom of religion, speech, and the press. One participant questions how freedom of speech would work, including if it protects hurtful speech. Another asks about spaces safe from free speech, while another says words are not violence. The group debates whether the government should fund fact checkers to identify misinformation and whether hate speech should be protected. One participant suggests only protecting speech that is agreed with. Madison insists all speech must be protected. The group then debates who would decide what speech is protected. Moving to the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, one participant wonders how to stop people from saying things they don't like if everyone has guns. Madison then promotes Christian Community Credit Union. He also shares a musical concept, revealing his middle name is Nathaniel, though he admits he doesn't have one. He claims to be on the $5,000 bill.

Christian interviews attendees at an April 5th capital protest, which he believes is against Elon Musk. One attendee says they are there to watch and protect trans kids from nobody. Another says they are there for democracy, stating federal workers work for the people, not the president, and tariff controls should be set by Congress. They display a flag harkening back to the War of 1812 and James Lawrence's cry, "Don't give up the ship." Another protestor says they are protesting against all injustice, claiming we have no democracy and are losing our rights. They express concern for the younger generation, warning they will lose their rights and education and may have to go to war. The protestor claims young people don't want to be educated. Someone else mentions getting paid $25.

Get your hands off of them! I just want to know what's happening. These people are not following the law. This is so wrong. She has the right to speak. I want to hear what he has to say. Let's listen to his perspective.