interposition Archives - Tree of Liberty Society

TRANSCRIPT

And so we see how—one of the important things—we mentioned this a few weeks ago about mothers teaching their children this principle. Being taught either in our families growing up, or learning this principle now and applying it and teaching it to others—this was the sons of Helaman.

And it says that now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death. And they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives. So they understood this principle as well. They didn’t think about the short term. And that’s, I think, where our society today is really focused—so much on not only short-term gratification, but what is the short-term result of what’s being done, as opposed to the long term.

Those excuses that I mentioned earlier are all thinking short term: what’s going to happen to me right now? Not thinking about what’s going to happen long term if I don’t do the right thing.

And so these sons, that had never fought in war, didn’t know the horrors of war—they were not afraid. They knew that liberty was more important. There were certain things that were worse than death, and they wanted to make sure that even if it cost them their lives, that was a price they were willing to pay for a greater cause: the liberty of their fathers.

And so in Daniel, we hear ancient prophets—this is talking about the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Daniel chapter 3 says:

“Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer”—I’m going to probably mispronounce all of those—“and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image.”

So this is the order from the government to captured Israel. And they were commanded to all get down and worship the golden image:

“And whoso falleth not down and worshipeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.”

“There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—these men, O king, have not regarded thee. They serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”

So they openly rebelled. They openly said, you know what? There are certain things—they knew what the consequence was, that they would be killed, that they would be burned alive in a furnace if they did not do this thing the government told them to do—and they went against it.

And it says:

“Then they brought these men before the king. So Nebuchadnezzar spake and said to them, ‘Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?’”

So he’s furious, brings them forward, and asks them again—gives them an opportunity to deny, kind of deny the Christ, basically, in that situation. And so they admitted it. They said, “Yeah, I’m willing to pay the price.”

Their response to the king was:

“If it be so, our God whom we serve—meaning if it be so that we get burned—our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”

So we know the story—kind of hindsight is 20/20—but here they’re saying, “We believe that God will protect us. But even if He doesn’t deliver us out of your hands—it’s okay. It doesn’t matter. If it’s God’s will to protect me, that’s great. If it’s not, we’re still not going to worship this golden image. We’re not going to violate our conscience. We’re going to do the right thing, no matter what the consequence is.”

They knew that there were circumstances that they could be delivered. But they also recognized that maybe they wouldn’t be delivered. That was irrelevant. The deliverance from the harm was irrelevant. And we know the history that they were protected, but that doesn’t always happen.

There’s Daniel in chapter 6:

“All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors and the princes, the counselors and the captains have consulted together to establish a royal statute and to make a firm decree that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days—save thee (except thee)—shall be cast into the den of lions.”

So no praying to anybody but the king. And so Daniel, knowing the writing was signed—this was a law that was passed—he went into his house, and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God as he did aforetime.

So he didn’t change. He didn’t make an excuse and say, “You know, I’m going to go do this in secret. What they don’t know won’t hurt them.” He didn’t pretend like he was obeying them. No—with his windows open—he prayed so everyone could hear and see him.

And so these men assembled and found Daniel praying, making supplication before his God. So he was seen. And we all know the story about how he was brought, but it goes to show us that Daniel wasn’t worried about what was going to happen to him right then. He wasn’t worried about not being able to provide for those—or, you know, the rest of Israel.

We don’t know what the rest of Israel did, but I tend to think that probably the rest of the Israelites were going along with it—or at least maybe pretending and only praying in secret—because the only record we have of someone going against it and going into the lions’ den was Daniel.

And so the rest of the “members of the church” at the time were going along with it—or at least pretending to. And it was only Daniel that was going against the grain, going against what everybody else was doing.

And he didn’t say, “Well, everybody else is doing it. What is this going to benefit? If I’m dead, how is this going to help other people?” He just knew he had to do the right thing. And whatever—do what is right, let the consequence follow. That’s what he was worried about.

We learn about this with Abinadi in Mosiah chapter 13:

“Ye see that ye have not power to slay me. Therefore, I finish my message.”

So at that point, he was being protected. They could not grab him. They could not hurt him. And so he finished his message:

“Yea, and I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities. Yea, and my words fill you with wonder and amazement—and with anger.”

It’s always what happens when you’re telling the truth: the guilty find the truth to be hard.

“But I finish my message. And then it matters not whether I go—if it so be that I am saved.”

Meaning saved—his soul, not his body. Because he goes on to say, whatever you’re going to do to me after I’m done giving this message that I was commanded by God to give—whatever happens after that, that’s not my problem. Because doing what I was told, no matter the consequence, is what matters. He didn’t fear man; he feared God. And he was willing to do the right thing, no matter what the short-term outcome would be.

So we go to Alma 46. This is about the Title of Liberty. And you have Moroni seeing that there’s this conspiracy going on where these people want to take away the liberty of the people. And so Moroni says:

“It came to pass that he rent his coat, and he took a piece thereof and wrote upon it: ‘In memory of our God, our religion and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.’ And he fastened it upon the end of a pole, and he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins. And he took the pole which had on the end thereof his rent coat, and he called it the Title of Liberty.”

“And he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should be a band of Christians remain to possess the land.”

For thus were all the true believers of Christ who belonged to the church of God called—by those who did not belong to the church. And those who did belong to the church were faithful.

Yea, those who were true believers in Christ took upon them gladly the name of Christ—or Christians, as they were called—because of their belief in Christ, who should come.

And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians and the freedom of the land might be favored.

So here we see that the cause of the Christians is the freedom of the land, right? The cause of liberty is the cause that anybody calling themselves a follower of Christ—it is their cause. We need to understand that. If we are going to consider ourselves Christians, we need to realize that the cause of liberty is a vital part of that.

Continuing on in Alma 46, it says:

“It came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation—yea, and in fine, all the land both on the north and on the south—a chosen land and a land of liberty.”

So there’s a lot of people out there saying we need to just focus on the one part—that we just need to be preaching about the Savior. Well, when we leave out the principles of liberty—this is the land of liberty—we are leaving out a vital part of the cause of Christ.

“Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed—until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.”

The land of liberty will not be taken down—we won’t have our liberty taken away—unless we take it away by our own actions, because we have transgressed and not fought for liberty.

“And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part, and crying with a loud voice…”

So he’s spreading the word. He’s helping others understand and learn about the principles of liberty, and how liberty is directly linked to the Savior.

“Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.”

So he’s sharing—he’s spreading around the message. And he says they need to enter into a covenant with God that they will maintain their rights. That is the thing they have to do to maintain the favor and blessings of the Lord: to stand up and maintain, do the work—not just say, “Yes, I read it,” or “I like it”—but they do the work to maintain their rights.

So it’s part of the covenant as followers of Christ to maintain our rights if we are to expect those blessings of the Lord.

“We covenant with our God that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression.”

Meaning: we violate that covenant of defending liberty.

“Yea, he may cast us at the feet of our enemies, even as we have cast our garments at thy feet to be trodden underfoot, if we shall fall into transgression.”

Meaning: if we fail to keep our promise to maintain liberty.

So failing to defend liberty was a violation of their covenants—something they recognized deserved a just punishment from God.

The post The Surprising Power of Selfless Acts! appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Would You Risk Everything For Liberty?

Rod Klingler — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 03:00:30 +0000

You’ve probably been taught that the Founding Fathers were just racist, fat, rich White men who were only looking after their own best interests. But, guess what? That’s bull💩!

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

There’s a couple of different things—mindsets—that you hear a lot, excusing either themselves or others for doing something that is really not appropriate, not good. It’s unprincipled. And, you know, you’ll see officer excuses, either for themselves or for others, about officers—“they’re just following orders.”

And this was actually, you know, it’s—I don’t know, ironic might be the wrong word—but I find it interesting when I hear people use this for excusing police and other government officials for doing something wrong. The excuse that they were given was that they were just following orders, when that was the exact excuse that was given during the Nuremberg trials for the Nazi soldiers. And it was said that that’s not an acceptable excuse to do something wrong.

And so that’s something that I still hear on a regular basis for why people do things that are wrong. We heard this at our meeting that we reported on a few weeks ago, where the cop was talking about himself—or he was talking about a different officer—where they had to take the vaccine or they had to enforce something they knew was wrong to protect their job, so that they could provide for their family.

Or the other ones that I’ve heard before are that, you know, “If I didn’t do that thing, it didn’t matter because someone else would do it anyway.” So why—you know—it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. “Why put my neck out there? Why bother if it’s not going to make a difference anyways?”

And so this is kind of the mindset that I find to be very cowardly and helps to perpetuate the situation that we’re in. And we need to—if there’s any part of us that has this mindset—you know, I’m hoping that, you know, of course, if we’re here, that the majority of our mindset is outside of this. But if there’s any of that, you know, hidden away somewhere, I’m hoping to purge any of that that we might have left in our minds, because it’s wrong. And it helps to make things worse. And we need to really show ourselves as being principled and standing for what’s right no matter what.

Founding fathers—

Can I make one brief comment there?

Yeah, go ahead.

I was just going to say, it’s so interesting because I work with other professionals, right? So if you have, say, an electrician come to your home—like, I am not your boss. You are at my home. You will wire it this way, right? And what does the electrician say? “You’re an idiot. I can’t do it that way. And I won’t do it that way. Goodbye.” No.

And literally any other profession—you know, whether it’s a mechanic, electrician, you name it—other than government-run institutions, who will just flat deny anything—someone else’s orders on top of their own. And it doesn’t matter. Right?

People will come that I’ve worked with, and you’ll get a bid for one thing. The person will show up to actually do it. They’ll look at it and say, “Well, I don’t care what my supervisor said or what the guy giving you the bid said. That does not work.”

And so it’s strange to me that there is that, you know, that disconnect. That with government, that is absolutely 100% good. And in fact, it’s a badge of honor to just go along with what someone else is telling you to do. But, you know, then with every other profession we interact with, they’d never let that happen.

Yeah.

Even at Chick-fil-A—you go there, you forget your wallet—what do the people say? “Oh hey, just pay us next time.” It’s just—every other profession other than government allows individuals to use their moral free agency and their professional training to make decisions.

So anyway, I just thought that was interesting as I’ve compared and contrasted this. And I don’t know what the cognitive dissonance or the disconnect is in all of us, you know—and especially those officers perpetrating this, you know—and, you know, like Dan McKay when he, you know, had the guy gagged and thrown out of the Utah Capitol for wearing a “We the People” shirt. “Oh, this is just going along with what the other guys told me to do.”

But I think you make a good point too, Nate, that it’s only acceptable in certain criteria. We only let certain professions get away with that. You mentioned electricians, right? I mean, there’s just different things out there that—they’re just going to not do it because it’s wrong. And the fact that other people—

All of a sudden you’re in government, and you don’t have to follow your conscience anymore. It’s bizarre.

I appreciate you chiming in. The Founding Fathers at the end of the Declaration of Independence—they stated that:

“We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

So they were putting their sacred honor—their reputations—on the line. Their fortunes—they were willing to put their resources on the line to get the job done. They were willing to put their lives on the line.

So was this just a platitude? Was this just a, you know, a figure of speech? Or did they actually implement this? Did they show in their daily lives after they signed the Declaration of Independence that that’s what they would actually do?

And I say that yes—they actually proved that they did pledge their lives—their actual lives, their actual fortunes, and their actual honor to get the job done.

So I just want to kind of go over some of the examples of that. There were five of the signers that were captured by the British during the war, and they were brutally tortured. So they were willing to be tortured for the cause.

Nine of them fought in the war, and they died from their wounds or from hardships because of it.

Four of them had their sons captured or even killed. So not only—you know, sometimes we’re like, “Yeah, okay, I’m willing to sacrifice for myself, but you involve my kids in this thing…” That’s a whole other story. You know, I’m not—you know…

These guys were willing to put their own children on the line for the cause. Not in a cowardly way, where they’re like pushing their kids in the forefront so they didn’t have to suffer—but no, there was this actual sacrifice. And I think that that’s—you know, sometimes children and families are used as a leverage against people to do the wrong things, to violate their conscience. But these men said, “No, I’m willing to do that.”

Yeah.

Twelve or more had their homes destroyed due to their efforts—their farms, their lands—destroyed because of their involvement in the Declaration of Independence.

All of them gave up hundreds of thousands of what would be dollars today—it wasn’t the money they used back then—but what would be hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cause. They were giving up their riches to be able to support what was needed, to provide the support that was needed in the field to get the job done.

And they had their businesses destroyed. There were shipping companies—they were owners of shipping companies—that had their ships confiscated and destroyed and their businesses.

They didn’t say, “Oh, you know, if I stand up for this, it might hurt my business.” They were willing to sacrifice their very livelihood. So not just giving up their money—meaning “Here is some money, get this done”—but they sacrificed their ability to provide for their families to make sure that the cause was supported.

And so we can see that these are people that put their money where their mouth is, so to say. That there was nothing—there was no part of their life—that they weren’t willing to put on the line. There was no excuse of, “Oh, I’ve got to support my family,” or “I don’t want to lose my job,” or “I don’t…” You know—whatever it was. “Oh, yes, I’m willing to sacrifice my life, but not my kids.” There was no part of their life that they weren’t willing to put on the line to consecrate to the cause of liberty.

Right.

And this isn’t just the Founding Fathers. But we go throughout time—those that understand these principles. These are the principles I’m going to go over and show—how what we’re talking about right here and what we do at Tree of Liberty is the cause of Christ.

And so I want to show what the early Christian leaders—what did they do? What did they sacrifice for the cause?

You had Zacharias, who was the father of John the Baptist. He was killed in the temple for not disclosing his son’s hiding place. John the Baptist—he was in hiding, and they wanted to know where he was, and Zacharias didn’t tell them. And so they killed him for it.

You had the apostle Paul—he was beheaded. Peter was hung upside down. Andrew himself was crucified. Thomas was killed by the spears of four Roman soldiers. Philip was tortured to death. James was stoned and clubbed to death.

And then later on—even so, it wasn’t just the Christians right around the time of Christ—but even a couple of hundred years after the time of Christ, you had St. Lawrence, who was grilled to death, because Christianity was deemed by the Roman government “the hatred of the human race.” So it wasn’t just like, “Oh, it was your religion.” It was—Christianity was deemed just a threat to humanity in general.

And so they grilled him—they barbecued him to death—because of that. And he was willing to put his life and be tortured in that way to support the cause of Christ.

The post Would You Risk Everything For Liberty? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Independence Now and Independence FOREVER!

Rod Klingler — Fri, 04 Jul 2025 03:45:03 +0000

Do we have the same complaints the Founding Fathers had when they felt drove to rebel against England? No. We have MORE!

This is an excerpt from “Independence Month,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cujwjd97pkst6amgyafa0/july-25-2022-independence-month.mp4?rlkey=175ddlkr446hgf0yjedcrjw8m&st=tc0dl2yd&dl=0

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

So what were some key points that were laid out in the Declaration of Independence about why they dissolved their union with the colonies of Great Britain? Because in the Declaration of Independence, they said that these things shouldn’t be done for light and transient purposes. That you can’t just be like, “Oh, you’re mean to me.” It’s got to be something serious. It’s got to be something that—not just because you’re angry—but there’s a real legitimate principled reason for the dissolving.

So they said that the king has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. So now, is that something that we see today? Pulling up new offices, sending out the officers of those offices to harass the people and to take away—to bother the people—and then to take away the things that they have, their substance. I mean, not just going in there and grabbing their food out of their plate, but their ability to be able to provide for their families. This is absolutely—we see the same thing going on today.

Right now, there are at least 345 agencies, government corporations, quasi-official agencies, boards, commissions, etc., which claim authority to write rules for individuals and businesses. None of these people are elected. None of these people are accountable. And in fact, the government doesn’t even know how many employees are a part of this system. They don’t even know. And so we have the same thing here—maybe even more so. I don’t know if the king had 345 different of these agencies out there. We’ve been able to find new ways to harass people.

And then we have examples of this. The feds come in and they arrest a family using the Commerce Clause of the vile… of the Constitution, saying, “Hey, you’re not allowed to sell raw milk.” So the federal government came into a local community and threw them in prison—just simply because—and ruined their ability to feed their families simply because they had the audacity to sell milk that still has vitamins in it.

We have OSHA. This is just last year—or this year, I’m sorry, January of this year—is fining workplaces over $13,500 for every infraction to accommodate President Biden’s vaccine mandate. So that never came to fruition, but that was something that they were prepared and ready to do. And it’s something that there’s a version of that’s happening all of the time to different businesses throughout the country. So yeah, they are—just like—they are eating out our substance.

Four companies accused of violating COVID-19 health protocols are fined by OSHA. So because they didn’t enforce mask mandates, they were fined by OSHA. So they’re eating out our substance. We’re seeing the same thing.

So another one: the king has affected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power. Okay, so meaning—he took it away from the Parliament even—and their ability to be able to dispatch the military—and took it to himself, as an individual, to be able to decide when the military is used.

So in the Constitution, the military is supposed to be under the civil power—meaning you have a Congress that has to declare war for the executive branch to be able to direct the military for a space of two years. And beyond—even closer to the civil power—the local people, you have the National Guard, and it should be the militias (that don’t exist right now, unconstitutionally). Your local governors were the ones that were supposed to be the ones that sent them out. And they could nullify—they could say, “No, this is an unjust war. This is improper,” and they wouldn’t send them out. So that’s what we have now.

But just like the king did during the 1700s, we have the president sending out 10,000 troops to Afghanistan as Taliban forces… So instead of Congress doing this, we have the executive branch doing it. He says Biden is boosting U.S. troops in Europe because of Russia’s war in Ukraine. So instead of Congress declaring a war and our local leaders sending out the local militia to fight these foreign battles, the president is rendering the military independent and superior to the civil power. This has happened over and over again. You have other presidents—they called up the National Guard and directed them to the Middle East under the direction of the presidency and the United Nations, and not under the civil power.

Our military has been sent up to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua—tons and tons of different places. Our military has been sent out under the direction of what would be the equivalent of the king or president, instead of the civil power.

So: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.” So now our government has signed us up to over—almost—90 different foreign institutions, subjecting us to their laws—making it… well, their pretend legislation—making us obey, making us assent to the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G20, the NAFTA, the new version, USMCA, NATO, and dozens upon dozens of other international bodies that are telling us what to do and making rules for individual businesses and families to obey.

So the family would obey it—but not directly. They’re not realizing that they’re getting a directive from the United Nations or the World Bank. But their loaning system, the regulations on why their house was built, for example—these are all done under international regulations. And so we are being forced to assent to these organizations’ pretend legislation.

So now, another thing that was a claim against the crown was transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses. So we have U.S. citizens who are being held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay and other foreign prisons without due process. And there are other prisons that we have and we’ll be talking about.

So Christie asked, when was the last time our country went to war legally? That was during World War II—it was the last time war was declared by Congress. So it’s been a while.

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” Just the most recent example of this—this has happened throughout the years though—is: I did a video, I did a report exposing how I could prove that the government was behind the riots that we had in 2020. They are exciting—the government is stirring up and directing and organizing insurrections among those terrorist attacks amongst us.

So how do we come to a dissolving again? Amongst those which join together to form a government in a country, it is absolutely requisite that there be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of the means of government. If they do not agree, they will clash. Right? This is what we’re seeing today. This is a clear parallel that we see going on, that we can see. You don’t have to be a prophet. You don’t have to be able to see into the future. You just have these things that people have noticed. Right? Isaac Newton didn’t invent prophecy—gravity—he discovered it. He was able to explain it.

And so the same thing here. What we’re saying is that, well, you know, it’s come to a point in the United States that it’s not even like, “Hey, this is going to happen.” This is happening right now. Everything that we’re seeing is happening. It’s leading to these clashes that were talked about.

And so John Adams—it was something that they understood. And so what did he say when he saw these things happening? We had all of those things that the Founding Fathers listed as their grievances against the crown, listed in the Declaration of Independence. I encourage everyone to go back and read that if they haven’t.

He gave a talk—and this was what’s interesting—this was before the Declaration of Independence. Okay, a lot of times people think that the war started after the Declaration of Independence. But the Founding Fathers recognized that even though a war hadn’t been declared, that the crown had declared war on them through his actions.

And I mentioned this before, just the last couple of weeks—we need to start to realize that the war on us has already begun. We just have to recognize it. It’s already started.

“If we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on or to give up the war? Do we mean to submit to the measures of Parliament, Boston Port Bill and all?” Are we going to postpone? Are we going to give this up? Are we going to say, “Oh, we’re going to get hopium and say that this is going to get better later on?” “Do we mean to submit and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to powder and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust?”

“The war, then, must go on.” Because they’re not going to do that. “We must fight it through. And if the war must go on, why put off longer the Declaration of Independence?” That measure will strengthen us.

So he was selling the idea of having a Declaration of Independence. And he says, this isn’t going to cause more problems for us. These problems are already here. And that’s what we see a lot of times today is, “Hey, you calling out the conspirators, you saying what they’re doing is bad, is going to cause more problems.” No, the problems are already here. We need to stop the gaslighting of saying, “Hey, we’re just going to try to make nice with these people.” They’ve already declared war on us. Calling it for what it is—it’s only going to strengthen us.

“It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment: Independence now and independence forever.”

And it was this talk—amongst others—that was able to help build support for what needed to happen. There was no reconciliation. There was nothing that could be done to bring the colonies back under British rule. The people had recognized what was going on, and the king was just getting more and more tyrannical. And the only thing to do was to be trodden down or to leave.

The post Independence Now and Independence FOREVER! appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Why We Should Keep Families Intact

Rod Klingler — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 03:00:19 +0000

What happens to children when families fall apart, and parents get divorced? What does that contribute to society? How can we change the future?

This is an excerpt from “Make Women Feminine Again,” Jennifer Moleski’s 22 Convention Speech. You can watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl1HMFPcc74. The Tree of Liberty Society is not associated with Jennifer Moleski, or anyone else involved with the 22 Convention. We just believe in spreading truth, wherever it is found. This clip contains a brief discussion of sex.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

The future is female.

This one is close to my heart because I don’t have any children.

And if I was a man in this reverse situation, I’d be called a beta cuck because my husband has full custody of his beautiful daughter.

So I get to have the honor of thinking about and concentrating on raising a child, raising a child to be an adult.

So when she is old enough, she can go off into the world and be smart and amazing.

So she came home after spending time with her mother, and she knows that I like her to journal.

She’s seven.

I like her to write about her dreams and her goals in the morning.

She’s like, oh, I got a new diary.

Do you want to see it?

I said, yes, I want to see it.

So she came out, and it said, I’m a little feminist.

Oh, no.

No, you’re not.

Okay, and then and then I opened it up and it said the future is female So I took I said can I have it and I ran downstairs Like did you you know, I’m looking at my husband right now.

Did you see this?

He’s a poor guy.

No.

Can I talk to her about this?

Yes.

So I said Young lady, you don’t even know what a feminist is.

So I’m not going to go into that, but I’m slowly going to try to tempt you out of feminism as you grow up.

But when you get older, you’re going to have to decide for yourself.

But the future is female.

Okay, let’s talk about your dad.

What does your, do you love your dad?

I love my dad so much.

Okay, so why do you love your dad?

What does he do?

Well, he provides, and he leads in the prayer, and he’s funny, and he’s really good at tickles, and we go on bike rides, and he wrestles.

Okay, great. And then we went through all the men in our life.

Are they good?

Yeah, they’re great.

Okay, well, what about your mom?

Yeah, she’s awesome.

Okay, why?

Well, she teaches me, and she cooks.

Okay, what about Jennifer?

What about all the women?

And she wants to be grown up.

Okay.

So much.

And so when you’re a big girl, do you want to just hang out with women?

She’s like, no, me neither.

Do you want a husband one day?

Yeah.

Do you want your dad to be around?

Yes.

So we added male and.

So now it says the future is male and female.

I mean, we have to fight against this.

If you don’t raise your children, one day you’ll have to fight them.

So, I think that we have to catch children.

I know this almost sounds culty, but minds are malleable at any age.

But we have to, I think, catch children And just raise them with logic and nurturing, and I think they’ll come out ahead.

Honorable conversations cannot be had with someone who’s hysterical.

I think that most feminists are pretty hysterical.

Men and women.

So let’s catch them before that.

When I was a little girl, I really, I would always start a club.

Like when I was like 10 years old, before recess, I’d be like, if you want, I’m starting a club.

And if you want to be a part of my club, just come and sign up.

And guess what?

All the girls will come and sign up for a club.

What are we going to do?

Nothing.

I mean, they just want to be a part of something.

We all just want to be a part of something.

So I think of feminism.

You know, it’s just a thing that women do.

It’s a club.

It’s a sisterhood.

I have no problem with that, but it’s kind of, no, it is toxic.

I think of gangs for men.

Well, and women.

Maybe this is a gang.

Maybe it is a gang. so how do we how do we catch that before well it was it was difficult because like i said i always like to go first with a speech because every speech that we heard i looked at i looked at my husband was like I’m going to talk about that.

I’m going to talk about that.

So everyone that spoke is probably like, what a poacher.

We talked about that.

But it’s not.

I really came up with this a while ago.

So my idea is to keep families intact.

Girls with no fathers in the home have lower self-esteem.

OK, fine.

That sucks.

But also, women with low self-esteem are more promiscuous.

So girls with high self-esteem.

Don’t have you know sex boys with high self-esteem have more sex, but hopefully they’re covering that over there.

No, no father families more likely to be victims of abuse especially with single mothers single mothers bring men just tend to be more predatorial and but either way, there’s violence and abuse.

And this is sexual and physical.

We know this.

Children with high BMI more often come from fatherless homes.

Here’s something interesting.

More, say that word.

I can’t say it.

Authoritarian.

Thank you.

Fathers have the fittest children.

I thought that was kind of cool.

I’m not saying that I want that.

You just be whatever you want.

But that was really interesting to me.

The more opportunities a child has to interact with biological father, the less likely they are to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system.

OK, another way to say that is men and women who are incarcerated the population of the prisons mostly encompass fatherless homes.

Now, here’s something that no one else has mentioned, which I think is cool, and I don’t really say this eloquently.

If a man and wife raise a child, they’re less likely to end up in jail, but they have the same statistical chance as children raised by just their father.

So if we want to keep children, adults, out of prison, mother, father, or just father?

We don’t want to hear just father, so let’s try to keep the families intact.

I think that just seems better.

And the other thing I would say, and no one talks about this, if you, and I didn’t know if I was going to talk about this or not either, but if you get a divorce, you’re going to have to live and die with it.

And I don’t want you to, at the end of your five minutes, think, no, to realize that you took advantage of a system.

Like, I understand that you can get a lot of money, but you don’t have to do that.

I just want you to have integrity.

I have a… a video called, it has far too views.

I feel like all my really interesting videos have low views and all of my contentious ones have high views, but of course that’s it.

That’s just the way it goes.

But it’s called Deathbed Meditations.

And I did this thing once, I feel like there’s two types of fantasies.

There’s the ones that you create, like when you’re a girl, and you go out with a guy, or a guy goes out with a woman, and they’re like, I think this could be something.

I think I’m going to take them on a picnic.

And then maybe the picnic, they’ll go, good, okay, I’ll make that sandwich.

And I’ll do it.

You know what I mean?

It’s like a fantasy that you create.

And then there’s the ones that are like, ah!

Thank God no one could get into my head.

I had no idea where that thought came from.

But I did this purposeful fantasy of dying.

And I started naming it in my deathbed meditation.

So I’d lay in bed and I would force myself to be on my deathbed.

So I have three minutes, two minutes, one minute dead.

And the first time I did it, it was so impactful.

I felt my family was around me in my fantasy.

And I was like clawing to stay alive.

And I don’t know if anyone’s read the book The Godfather.

The book is better than the movie.

But right before he dies, he falls on his knees and he goes, life is beautiful.

And then he dies because the existence is so beautiful.

And in those moments of existence and importance, you realize what is important. It is God and family and life and light.

So, if you get a divorce, try to be nice.

And if a woman that you know, especially for women, ladies, if you have a lady friend who’s going to get a divorce, please help her not feel like a victim and manipulative and vicious.

Because it’s not a good place to make decisions from.

Okay?

And please counsel her to share that time with her father, with their father without a fight.

Because the children will grow up and they will not be pleased with mama.

The post Why We Should Keep Families Intact appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What Does The Feminist Agenda Look Like?

Rod Klingler — Sun, 08 Jun 2025 03:00:13 +0000

Many people deny that a feminist agenda exists. If actions speak louder than words, we should be able to tell if a feminist agenda exists merely by observation. This is an excerpt from “Make Women Feminine Again,” Jennifer Moleski’s 22 Convention Speech. You can watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl1HMFPcc74. The Tree of Liberty Society is not associated with Jennifer Moleski, or anyone else involved with the 22 Convention. We just believe in spreading truth, wherever it is found.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

I talked to a man in India, and he was having a hard time with the feminist agenda in India.

And his daughter, I can’t remember the exact age, 9 to 12 years old, but she came home from school.

It was a mother and a father and a brother and a girl.

And one night they’re having dinner, and the little girl said something to the effect of, women can do anything better than a man.

And the father was like, well, tell me more about that.

And she’s like, well, it’s just at school.

I mean, everybody knows that a woman can do things better than a man, and girls are better than boys.

And so he had to go through this whole thing.

You know, like, can you tell me how your mom is better than me?

She’s like, well, not you, Dad.

You’re really cool, you know?

And then he wanted to say, what about your brother?

But that was a losing battle, because the brother is the worst person in the world, according to her.

o then he went on to grandpa and uncle and the men, and she at the end said, you know, I guess it’s wrong.

So feminism is a big thing in schools.

Okay, so this is…

This is a poster that is in some elementary schools right now.

Know your A to Zs.

Prevent violence against women.

I don’t have any problem with that, but we’re talking elementary school.

Challenge gender stereotypes and promote respect.

Ask women about their experiences of sexism and harassment.

Really?

That’s what we want to do when you’re in fifth grade?

Okay, so here, I’m thinking about this.

What if you said, ask men about their experiences of sexism and harassment?

What if you said, Johnny, so what’s going on?

Like, how have you been sexually harassed?

He’d be like, um… I guess, I don’t know, but I guess I have.

Yeah, I mean, that time that Claire said that your butt stunk and whatever, like that’s harassment.

So if we switch any of these to men, we’d be in an uproar.

Believe reports of violence and sexual assault offer support, not suspicion.

Okay, okay, so we’re teaching women to believe that.

Well, what about when someone says something about my husband?

Am I supposed to believe that?

Or your husband or your dad. I think we have a pretty good country where we try to get to the bottom of things, but if you’re a little kid, you’re learning that it’s just women.

And then here, find a way to support women’s choices whatever they are.

Whatever they are.

Okay, well, we’re being, here, let me see. Raising your children, K-12, that’s 15,000 hours.

So maybe you’re like, OK, well, that’s just a stupid poster.

I can absolutely combat that.

And you probably absolutely can.

But K-12 is 15,000 hours.

So Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book.

It’s not his blank.

Maybe it’s outliers.

But it’s Anyone Can Become an Expert at Anything with 10,000 Hours.

What are you an expert at from your K-12 education?

That’s disappointing.

I mean, they don’t even teach you to be an expert at anything.

But with little snippets of indoctrination, 15,000 hours certainly adds up.

Okay, they’re not at school

They’re with you.

Now you have an impact.

It’s true.

Except for the average person.

I hate to talk about the CDC because I think they’re kind of poopy farts, but eight to 10 years old is six hours per day of screen time.

So what are they seeing with their screen time?

I don’t… I don’t know.

I mean, I know there’s parental locks and whatnot, but I mean, think about the six hours a day on a screen.

If they’re staring at that and then you like stop and interrupt and get their eye contact.

For six hours a day. OK, 11 to 14, nine hours a day gets worse and then it gets a little bit better because they’re a little bit more active in life.

15 to 18 years old.

They’re seven and a half hours and that’s not good.

Okay well let’s keep them off the screen okay.

Well they’re out in the world.

So this is a new ad campaign in Canada, I think.

I don’t don’t pay attention to this.

The most loving gift you can give your first child is to not have another one.

Oh that’s so sweet.

So we’re being infiltrated, we’re being sold an agenda.

So I thought, thinking about the Indian guy and my speech and my life and everything, I thought, well, I wonder how can we fight feminism?

That’s a good question.

Google’s smart, right?

There’s no agenda behind them.

They’re just fair and it’s all equality.

So I went to Google and I said, how can parents fight feminism?

How-fight-feminism.

Number one, feminist parenting, the fight for equality at home.

Number two, six ways to explain feminism to parents who just don’t get it.

Number three, how feminist mothers can raise feminist sons.

We need the patriarchy to defend the vicious feminists that want to eat you.

That’s not how it works.

That is kind of how some people’s brains work, but I don’t want that.

Number five, gender equality starts at home.

Seven tips for raising feminists.

Six, a feminist guide to raising boys.

Number seven, want to be a feminist parent?

Four goals to consider.

How to raise a feminist child when your family doesn’t like your feminism.

And feminists forgotten fight for family values.

OK, so the stats are kind of weird on that.

It’s like 30% to 60% of women identify as a feminist.

Then why 100%? of the first page of Google is they’re all how to be a feminist.

Do you guys know, this is stupid, but do you know where the best place in the world to hide a dead body is?

It’s the second page of Google.

Because no one ever goes there.

So we have this.

So this is an agenda, I believe.

The post What Does The Feminist Agenda Look Like? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What Does Article 5 Really Mean For Us?

Rod Klingler — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 03:00:23 +0000

Ben McClintock was a keynote speaker at the 2025 Constitution Party Convention in Orem, Utah. His topic was the power of states and individuals to take a stand against unconstitutional federal overreach. Due to video equipment failure at the actual event, this speech was re-recorded at another location afterwards. Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

When we talk about the Constitution, sometimes we forget about the basics, the fundamentals, the natural law, and then also what created the Constitution.

The fact that it’s not just this thing that existed and then created all these sub-bodies, but actually that it was 13 independent nations that formed a union.

And what that really means.

And so what we have to understand about the Constitution is that it’s a contract between these independent nations.

And the Founding Fathers talked about the fact that this is a contract.

We have here Thomas Jefferson, where he talks about that.

This isn’t the Kentucky Resolution.

So the state of Kentucky was saying that an act of the federal government was illegal.

And so Thomas Jefferson being one of the authors of that said that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

But by a compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States and of amendments there too, they constituted a general government for special purposes.

So it’s a compact.

What does that mean a compact?

Let’s go into Article 7 of the Constitution.

The compact is a formal agreement or contract.

So we have entered into by the states a contract to have specific limited duties performed.

And so in Article 7 of the Constitution we learn more about the application of that contract.

It says the ratification of the conventions of the nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

So this Constitution is between those states.

They needed to have a certain amount of states saying we’re going to agree to this contract before it was binding upon those that did enter into it and then it was between those states.

It wasn’t between this all-powerful body and these sub -bodies that were subject to the bigger body, but it was another body that was created by these, and it was something between the states specifically.

And then we go to the next article in the Constitution.

We have the 10th Amendment, where it explains this concept of a compact even more in the contract, says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

So once again saying that this contract is a limited contract whether we have given limited powers to this new body that we have created and that if we haven’t given that body powers then that body doesn’t have that power specifically and then that those powers are then of course reserved by the creators the states and or the people themselves.

So again, the contract and the Kentucky Resolution, Thomas Jefferson says, “The several states who formed that instrument “mean the Constitution, being sovereign and independent.”

So even at this point, we formed the Constitution and we have created this compact, this contract, and we were still considered sovereign and independent nations.

Have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy.

So he’s saying that, no, it’s not the judges, it’s not the Supreme Court that decides when the Constitution is violated, it is the states, it’s the creators of the compact, of the contract that are the ones that are the final arbiters of when something is constitutional or when it goes beyond those bounds.

And we’re gonna get into a little bit some more modern application of that, and so that it kind of helps us to really quantify it and make it make more sense when we get to that.

But let’s go to the next part of the, this is in the ratifying convention.

The father of the Constitution, James Madison, explained this contract nature saying that clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article by any one party leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention to be dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair their breach.

So when you have a contract between two parties and one of the parties violates that contract, you have one of two options.

You have either saying, “Okay, that contract’s null and void, we’re not going by it anymore, we’re separating our ways,” or you say I’m going to force you to be a party to the contract. I’m going to force you to obey the contract that we both agreed to go by.

Those are our two options.

We either separate ourselves or we enforce the document.

There’s no other option when you have a party violating the contract.

And then again is in the Virginia resolution that came out about the same time as the Kentucky resolution, nullifying an act of the federal government.

James Madison said that this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact, as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact.

So in layman’s terms, that it is clear there is nothing that the federal government has the power to do that isn’t specifically listed as a power to do and that it is a
plain sense, the intention of the contract is no further valid than when they obey the limited jurisdiction that is given within that document.

And what’s really important to understand about James Madison is he was what’s called a federalist.

He was in support of the union.

It wasn’t like he was Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson was considered a anti-Federalist where he thought that the Constitution gave this new general government too much power.

So you can imagine somebody that was against the Constitution to begin with would say, “Oh, I’m gonna find a reason why it’s no longer valid.”

No, we have James Madison, the father of the Constitution, saying, “When you go beyond these bounds, “you are violating the contract that we entered into.”

And so they actually said in the Virginia Resolution, resolution was their duty to preserve the union was to enforce the contract by disobeying actions that
violated the Constitution and so it was their effort to be able to preserve the union that they said no we’re not going to obey the federal government so now we
have the law of agency and what that means in contract so we have this gentleman here and we have a contractor we have a homeowner and we have a home builder or a landowner and a home builder.

And they get together and they enter into a contract.

They agree together that I’m going to give you a certain amount of money and you’re going to build this house the way I’ve asked you to build it.

And so they agree to it.

They enter a contract.

And if the builder does what he’s told, exactly how he’s told, then he’s due the money that was agreed to in advance.

But let’s say the contractor says, you know what, this family could really use a pool. You know, they’ve got kids before their general welfare of their family.

So I’m going to add a pool to this.

And of course, because I spent the money, I spent the time for the equipment and the materials, he owes me to build this pool. But that’s a violation of the contract.

Because what was he given the authority to do? Only to build the house, nothing more.

And so any reasonable judge that this was brought to, if The contractor goes together, goes to court and says you owe me money for the pool.

The judge is going to say no, that contract was null and void when you built the pool, when you were not authorized to build the pool.

And so any, I think reasonable person would say this makes sense.

All of a sudden when we apply this to the Constitution, people think that that’s radical.

You know, that might be extreme.

But that’s exactly what it is.

It’s a contract between these parties and they have agreed to do certain things and if they do those certain things, the parties involved have agreed to go along with it, but as soon as they go beyond, as soon as they build that pool, no longer obligated to obey any of the actions, any of the laws that were passed by the body that was only authorized to do certain things.

So the thing to do is to fire the contractor.

So article five, talking about preserving the contract, because who created the contract again?

It was the states they came together and they said we agree to delegate these certain things so they’ve come together so article five of the Constitution is what was added to the contract to allow the states to be able to preserve their power and so as we go through it’s preserving their voice we look at what it says so
protecting the voice of the states it says that no state without its consent shall it be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So the state, as a political body, cannot, without its permission, have its suffrage.

If you remember the suffrage for women, right? So suffrage means votes.

So the state government’s vote cannot be taken from it without its consent, meaning without its permission.

So why did they do that?

They called it the unamendable laws because they couldn’t have their vote taken away without their consent.

You couldn’t have 99 out of 100 say that you don’t get your vote anymore.

They had to have everybody say yes, you can take away my vote, okay, so it was unamendable.

So we look at the Electoral College, just kind of the same principle behind giving the states their vote is the same concept behind the Electoral College, why we don’t actually pick a president according to the the popular vote.

You can just imagine what that would look like as we have these major population areas of California, of New York, and what that means.

You have the California having almost 40 million people in it and you have New York having about 20 million people in it and then you have states like Alaska and South Dakota having less than a million people in each of those states and what kind of result that that has what that would have if it was simply done by the population if we chose president by population you would have one or you know three or four cities basically picking the president and the rest of the country would be out of it and so they gave us the Electoral College to make sure that the president was chosen by the states as opposed to one or two major cities across the Union.

And so we look at article five again that protects the voice of the states and we look at this, you know.

The city of Los Angeles with all by itself.

We have it having about 12 million people versus the entire state of Utah only having about four million.

So just the city of Los Angeles would outvote us, you know, according to the presidency What is that three times over and so the just the influence that we would lose, that all of the smaller states would lose, was in the founding fathers wanted to prevent.

And so as another check besides the electoral college, we have article five of the constitution, not having their votes taken away from them.

And so here, and we look at the state of Utah and the counties within our state, where if the state had its vote taken away from it, and it was given to the people, like they choose the congressman, You have basically Utah County and Salt Lake County having all of the voice in who the senator is for the state of Utah.

And so the founding fathers recognized that just like that’s a problem for the entire union, a state would have its voice taken away if it was chosen by population just as much as if the president was chosen by population.

And so they in the article 5 of the Constitution made sure that the states got to keep their vote, and it was the state legislators that picked the senator for the U .S. Senate.

And so they called it the Unamendable Clause.

We have in the convention of 1887, it says it was feared that three -fourths of the states might be brought to do things fatal to particular states, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.

To protect this, it was added that no state be deprived of its equality in the Senate.

So no state was to have its vote taken away from them.

In the convention they also said that, in an order that no consolidation should take place, it is provided that no state shall by any amendment or alteration be ever deprived of an equal suffrage in the Senate without its own consent.

So there’s no, you can’t have an amendment passed unless it was Every single state said, “Yes, I agree to this.”

It’s not like any other amendment where you just had three -fourths of the states say that they agreed to it.

Had to be every single state agree to have its vote taken away from it.

And so we have the 17th Amendment, though.

That was passed in 1913, and it says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state elected by the people thereof.”

So it took away the vote of the states.

It said, “Now we’re going to give it to the people, the population centers of that state.”

an opinion on it.

So if a state has to have its consent to have its vote taken away from it, is the 17th Amendment valid according to Article 5 of the Constitution?

No, absolutely not, because they did not give their assent to have their voice taken away from them.

And so we have the state of Utah, in fact, went a step further and not only didn’t give its permission, but the state of Utah said, “No, you can’t have our vote.”

And so according to Article 5 of the Constitution, the 17th Amendment is a violation of the Constitution, which I think sounds weird to a lot of people to say that the Constitution violates the Constitution, but when you’re going to change it, you have to follow the rules of the original contract, otherwise the contract is now null and void.

So you have two options, right?

We have one option is to cancel the contract as it’s been violated or you enforce it as the contract has been violated.

And what needs to be understood is that it was not us that violated the contract.

It was the the general government that violated the contract by forcing a violation of it.

So what can a state do now that it’s been supposedly passed?

Do we do we just have to capitulate and go along with it?

You know, right?

No.

You don’t have to just go along with it.

That’s what the founding fathers said with the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and other examples of nullification.

You just say, “No, we’re not going to go along with it. It’s not a violation of the contract, and so it’s null and void, and we’re just not going to
do it.”

But there are other options that you don’t have to leave the union, that you can actually start to enforce the Constitution, and that is another option that
can be done.

We’ll get into that.

So what a state can do, you have James Madison in Federalist 46.

What he said, this is an argument you had, Patrick was also what was considered an anti -Federalist, saying we were giving too much power to the general government.

And you had James Madison, the Federalist Papers, defending the Constitution, saying, no, we would never, we would have to be insane.

He says, what degree of madness would we have to have come to to allow the general government to be so powerful that it takes away the state’s rights?

And so he says, so in Federalist 46, he goes through when he lists the things that can be done for an individual state to withstand the unconstitutional actions of the federal government.

He says that the means of opposition to the federal government going beyond its bounds are powerful and at hand.

So he’s like, it shouldn’t be a difficult thing.

These tools that we have, they are powerful tools and they’re right next to us.

We can grab them any time we want to. He says the disquietude of the people, their repugnance, and perhaps refusal to cooperate with the officers of the Union,
the frowns of the executive magistrate, the magistracy of the state, the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions would oppose in any state difficulties not to be despised.

A correspondence would be opened, Plans of resistance would be concerted.

In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.

The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part.

So he’s going back to the war for independence that we just went through and saying, we had a much bigger organization coming against us.

And then he’s saying now that no, we have a much bigger thing.

He is what would be the contest in the case we are supposing?

Who would be the parties?

A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves.

So he’s saying it would be the exact opposite.

So it’d be much easier because we’d have more people opposing a smaller group of people.

And so it would be much easier for us to oppose the government if they went beyond its bounds in the Constitution in this scenario.

So I wanna break this down also into more modern tongues.

We can, you know, disquietude is not really a word that’s used very often today, at least in the circles I run around with, or, you know, repugnance, I think that the meaning of that has changed a little bit as well.

So I wanna just talk about those meanings and that’ll help us to understand what it is our duty is or what are the things that we can do when the government goes beyond its contract.

So talking about disquietude, oh I’m sorry, with this just kind of breaking down what it is that James Madison said in Federalist 46, he says, “The disquietude of the people, the people’s repugnance, and the refusal to cooperate with the officers of the union.”

So these are the tools that we have at hand to be able to resist when the contract is being violated.

So now we look at the definitions of these words, disquietude.

We go to the dictionary of the time, Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, that was what the founding fathers would have used, and it says that it’s uneasy, uneasiness, anxiety, disturbance, wanted tranquility, so essentially no peace until the tyrants retreat.

So that’s what we’re supposed to do, according to James Madison, is that we are to have no peace.

We are to be full of disturbances and wanted tranquility until they back off, so that’s what disquietude We are going to be constantly going after them.

Somebody talks about one topic, and we just bring it right back.

We say, no, we’re talking about the violation of the contract. And then something else comes up again.

We’re like, no, we’re talking about the violation of the contract.

How about repugnance?

Today, the word means, in most people’s minds, at least in my mind, it’s ugly, it’s gross.

But that’s not what he meant there in the context of ’46. In federalist ’46, Disquietude means something completely different, but I am getting ahead of myself again, and I’m gonna get some more background on how the Founding Fathers were full of disquietude, how they were full of disturbances leading up to the War for Independence.

We have a 10 -year period, 1766 to 1776, there were more than 70 recorded incidents of tarring and feathering by colonists against government officials, just right there.

Today, can you imagine the way that our population is today?

If a single politician was tartan feathered by the populace, what would the response be, right?

The founding fathers were of a different breed than we are today.

They went, they’d 70 in 10 years.

In Berkshire, colonists forced justices of the court from their seats, shut up the courthouse and forced the justices from the city.

So they just ran everybody out of town that was going to be forcing the tyrannical acts of the crown.

Another thing that they did, they said outside of Boston, colonists went to the home of another judge and fired shots into his house, forcing him out of the city.

So again, you can just imagine what that would be like today because of the way that our culture is, that this would be seen as unacceptable.

But the founding fathers said, no, this is how we behave to be able to get government back under control.

This is something that most people in America believe that they support the Founding Fathers.

They love what the colonists did to be able to gather independence.

But when we say let’s be like them, they’re like, wait, hold on a second, that’s a little extreme to be like the Founding Fathers as much as we like to respect them.

But this is what they said was the solution to an out of control government.

Again, in 1774, the Attorney General’s House had windows broken and other damage forcing him to flee the city to Cambridge, Massachusetts, Lieutenant Governor had his house ransacked by colonists and was forced to resign and flee to Boston for safety. 5 ,000 colonists went to Worcester and compelled the judges, the sheriff, and other judicial officials to promise not to hold courts enforcing the acts of parliament.

So again, they were full of disquietude.

They did not allow the government to enforce its tyrannical edicts.

They said, “No, we’re not going to do it, and if you’re gonna be a part of that, we’re gonna drive you out of town.”

So, it’s our godly duty to be full of disquieting. The scriptures talk about that in Proverbs.

We’re to open in thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.

Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

And then in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 3, the Lord says, “Also, it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation and all the pure in heart
that we should waste and wear out our lives and bring into light all the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them.”

So we’re told to be full of disquietedness.

We’re supposed to waste and wear out our lives in exposing what’s going on. Lord says that we’re wearing out our life.

Like when we wear out something, it’s something that is used up is it’s not hidden away, something that is regularly used.

And so we are told to be full of disquietude to expose the evil that is going on and so that good may prevail.

So go to repugnance, what we think today and what it was back then. Repugnance was just disobedient. Wasn’t something that was stinky or ugly.

If you were repugnant, it meant that you were going to resist what was going on.

You just don’t do it.

And that’s what the founding fathers said under the Kentucky resolutions and in the Virginia resolutions and other examples of when the federal government violated the contract they said we’re not going to do it we’re not going to obey and that’s our job to preserve the union preserve the contract was to not obey anything that was outside of the contract so we’re supposed to be disquietful of disquietude and repugnance and so we do that through passing out literature or having cottage meetings in our home where people present something.

We pass out books to help people understand what’s going on.

We go to a meeting, a public meeting of a public official, and we get in their face and we say, you’re violating the contract.

You’re breaking the law. You need to be called out on it specifically, also getting together with those that we know and just meeting with them one -on -one and sharing with them the facts of liberty, of what God has asked us to do, and what is being violated in those things and so that we can bring more people to an understanding of their duty to be full of disquietude and repugnant.

So an example that he said, he says, “We need to refuse to cooperate with the officers.”

Here’s some examples of officers, right?

We have IRS agents, you have OSHA agents, you have ATF agents, and even local police would be considered the officers of the government because, A, of course, they are enforcing the tyranny and they are funded by the federal government.

And so, they are considered officers of the federal government that you would not cooperate with when they are sent to enforce these illegal edicts that violate the contract.

So I want to be more general, right? Just like when we say that we shouldn’t obey things that violate the contract, doesn’t mean we can just go down I -15 and do a bunch of donuts.

We don’t just break the law just because the government said you should do it, right?

There’s wisdom in things that you do.

And so we don’t, just because a government agent wants to ask for your help in finding out what’s going on with something, then we have to say, “Okay, this is reasonable.”

If somebody has actually murdered someone, then we should help catch the murder because murder is wrong.

But we see these agencies, they are illegal, they shouldn’t exist in the first place, and so we don’t cooperate with an agent of an agency that is illegal in the first place, but let’s give some specific examples of what I mean of not cooperating, refusing to cooperating with the officers.

We have here, I don’t know if you guys remember, this was back in 2003, here in Utah, you had a 12 -year -old that was diagnosed with cancer, and his parents didn’t wanna give him chemotherapy treatment, but that was illegal in the state of Utah.

You are compelled to treat your minor with what the state says you must treat them with for that disease, and they didn’t want to do that, and so they fled the state.

They left to go to Idaho so that they could get the treatment that they wanted for their child instead of the one that the state wanted.

So if somebody came to me, I knew this family, and they wanted my help in finding them, I absolutely would refuse to cooperate with that officer.

Sometimes you see these Amber Alerts that come on your phone.

And we’ll see them pop up where that’s somebody where it’s just a specific example just happened last year where a mother and a daughter, which the grandma and then the daughter were gotten a fight.

The daughter left with her baby and the mom was scared and so called the police and the police issued an Amber Alert threatening to take away the child and put the mom in jail simply because of an argument.

Well, most of these cases that we see of these Amber Alerts are simply the government attempting to kidnap somebody’s child.

And so that’s an example of where I would refuse to cooperate with the officers.

Here’s another example that we see every once in a while.

We have FBI offering $25 ,000 rewards for information in a series of attacks against abortion clinics.

So just to translate, reproductive health service facilities means Baby Murder Clinics.

So am I going to help them out to get the $25 ,000 so that they can, you know, so what they’re saying is somebody did something to help protect babies from being tortured and murdered.

And now they want me to help them find that person and put them in jail.

I’m not going to do that.

I am not gonna cooperate with the officers of the government to put somebody in jail that did whatever they could to stop a baby from being tortured and murdered.

And so we see some examples and there’s probably an endless list of examples where we would say it’s not right to help out these officers and that we would say it’s morally reprehensible to help them out.

So just wanted to give those examples of what James Madison talked about in Federalist 46 when he talked about not cooperating with the officers.

When they’re violating the natural rights, when they’re violating the Constitution, it is our job to help enforce the Constitution by not cooperating with these officers.

So we are to be doers of the word, right, as the Apostle James says, not hearers, because when we only hear something and don’t do something, we are deceiving ourselves.

We are being slothful servants when we learn something and don’t apply it.

And so these are examples of things that we can do to apply the things that we’ve learned. We can be disquieted and repugnant, right?

We need to read and apply what we’ve learned, hold cottage meetings where you or a representative from the Tree of Liberty Society presents on a targeted message.

We can distribute books and pass along materials directing others to the truth.

We can attend meetings to expose publicly crimes committed by government officials or bring yourself and others to meetings others are organizing.

We can write articles or make videos or help produce videos on topics of liberty or exposing evil.

And we can join with others in the Tree of Liberty Society to increase the volume of our repugnance, the volume of our saying no, the volume of our being full of
disquietude.

Encourage those viewing this to join with us in the Tree of Liberty Society to do what the founding father said, to enforce the contract, to make sure that we are being full of disquietude and that we are being repugnant to the illegal and criminal acts of those that wish to rule over us and that we can be the worst global citizen that we can be.

Thank you.

The post What Does Article 5 Really Mean For Us? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Does REAL ID Stop Illegal Immigrants From Voting?

Rod Klingler — Mon, 26 May 2025 03:00:16 +0000

You’ve heard the claim that REAl ID will stop illegal immigrants from voting… but is it true? Find out!

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

Ben I’ve heard that the real IDs is a good way to stop the illegals from voting so when you go up to your voting booth and they ask for your ID they’re just basically looking for that star now

If you don’t have the star boom you’re illegal you’re not eligible to vote

What are your thoughts on that

Well that’s how they get people like us to go along with tyranny

Well where in the Constitution are they authorized to A be over elections and B over IDs

And so are we willing to put up with a little bit of tyranny to be able to fight something that is really it’s designed to get us to comply because oh it’s to stop this other guy that’s not me where it’s not what it’s about

We’re being lied to by these people to get us to go along with it because it’s already it’s up to you with motor voter laws the illegal aliens already have real ID compliant IDs

And so it’s just not true that it helps to stop illegal voting because with motor voter like in the California and in Utah Idaho I know Arizona and New Mexico they just already have the yellow star on there and as a part of motor voter these illegals get their driver’s privilege card and it already has the star on it

And so now they can supposedly go vote if this argument is legitimate because they have a star on their identification card

It doesn’t actually do what they claim it does

It actually is about going after you and me not about helping to secure our nation

The post Does REAL ID Stop Illegal Immigrants From Voting? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Why You MUST NOT COMPLY With REAL ID

Rod Klingler — Sun, 25 May 2025 03:00:20 +0000

But, but, but… Uncle Sam always has your best intentions at heart, right? Right?!? NO! They are a bunch of globalists who are selling us out to the New World Order. YOU MUST NOT COMPLY!

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

That’s the scenario that I’m looking at now

Somebody’s going to show up in the airport next month if this holds

They’re not going to have the star

Their family’s going to be able to get on the plane if they have the star

What does a person do in that moment

It’s a soft one

They’re going to give you a warning and say we’re not going to allow you to come on again

So they’re like doing this one last hey we’re going to scare you into doing it if you don’t already have it

And so there still is that little cushion you’re going to have but it’s they’re really ramping up the pressure to get everybody to comply

Wow I wonder what how how this is going to come to head here I guess everybody’s just going to lay down and say okay that’s it

That’s what we’re doing now

I don’t know

That decides how it goes to a head is if do we resist or do we comply

If we comply then it’s going to go away and and we’re going to say oh it wasn’t that bad

And I’ll just go about my life as tyranny gets to increase

But if we don’t then they’re going to push it back again

They’re going to say oh we just don’t have enough compliance yet

And so we’re going to have to push it back

And you know by 2027 then we’ll then we’ll really do it this time

And so it really is important that we push back and don’t comply

The post Why You MUST NOT COMPLY With REAL ID appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Shocking Facts About REAL ID You Never Knew!

Rod Klingler — Fri, 23 May 2025 03:00:31 +0000

What does the conspiracy have planned for those who refuse the REAL IS star card? You need to know!

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors