Fun interview with a Hillbilly!

https://fb.watch/lKT67rYKTT/?mibextid=CDWPTG

Please donate here! An important case in PA needs some financial assistance. Every bit helps!

https://donate.cornerstone.cc/jonmarietta4wethepeople/

It's really quite simple. If your elected officials do not support single-day local precinct voting on hand-marked paper ballots, in person with photo ID, hand counting, and full transparency in tabulation and reporting, then you campaign against them.

And you make sure they know that you will be organizing campaigns to replace them.

"Warrior"

I was explaining to a friend the other day how I am fighting the war to reclaim our country:

"I feel like I woke up in the middle of a battlefield. A battle for liberty. A battle for the soul of our country.

What am I gonna do? Run? Hide?

No. I've engaged the battle.

I'm not merely fighting for my country. I'm fighting for the country that chose God. I'm fighting to reclaim what so many have sacrificed for, and for the opportunity for my children to experience liberty.

I'm fighting for America, because if America falls, liberty dies.

I'm a soldier in this war. It is a real war, and this is my tour of duty."

My friend said, "You're no soldier. You're a warrior."

I like the sound of that.

"Ohio Issue 1"

People have been asking me for my opinion on Ohio Issue 1. I just read it, and arguments for and against it. Essentially, if the issue passes, it makes it harder to change the Ohio state constitution by increasing the 100-year old requirements.

At first, I like the idea of making it harder to change the constitution, because I don't trust our legislatures to act in the public interest, and our constitutions are a defense against them.

On the other hand, there are times when the citizens need to rise up and effect change--and this certainly one of them. If the citizens can organize and meet the current requirements, then they should be able to effect the necessary changes.

It's not fair to change the rules, just because you don't like what the people want. On the other hand, the people are sometimes stupid.

I can relate to both sides of the argument.

But the deciding factor for me is that the current Sec'y of State, Frank LaRose, is supporting its passage.

LaRose is an establishment snake. He must not like it that the grassroots is waking up and taking away the reins.

If I were in Ohio today, I'd vote against it. The rules have served Ohio citizens well for 100 years, and reinforcing centralized establishment power is opposite to what we need right now.

"Ohio Issue 1, Second Opinion"

I am a scientist, not a politician, and despite having learned a great deal of politics in the last couple of years, I find that I am still quite naïve when it comes to politics. (Confession is good for the soul, and humility is where real science begins.)

Earlier today, I posted my First Opinion on Issue 1. Several people made constructive comments, and it caused me to reconsider my opinion.

In my First Opinion, I made it clear that my knee-jerk reaction was to protect the constitution. That instinct is good and healthy.

I also admitted in my First Opinion that the thing that tipped my opinion against Issue 1 was that the current Sec'y of State (who is a snake) is supporting it. And so is our RINO governor DeWine. Therefore, I must be against it, I concluded.

I confess that this tipping point was irrational.

Upon further investigation, I see that RINOs are supporting Issue 1 because they are trying to garner support from awakening conservatives, and that progressives are against it because they plan to attempt to revise the Ohio constitution in November.

As a final check, I consulted with some of the Ohio politicians I respect the most, like Janet Porter. She is for it, big time.

So, in the end, my first instincts were correct: protect the constitution.

I recant.

Vote Yes on Issue 1.

Watch Dr Frank in Wisconsin now!! https://rumble.com/v31vn2q-seven-steps-to-taking-back-our-elections-featuring-joe-oltmann-and-david-cl.html