Oath to the Constitution: Ignored and Betrayed Daily at the Cost of Liberty

Video Transcript

Welcome to Truly Right View
Let The Truth Be Told!

Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Channel

if their Duty their honor and their Oaths will not bind them let us not put into their hands our Liberty and all our other great interests Governor Morris the Penman of the Constitution the author of The Preamble to the Constitution he did not mince words but despite that warning despite that advice politicians today across the political spectrum they violate their oath to the Constitution almost constantly 24/7 365 and they never seem to pay the price the people I think it’s out of ignorance or fear or maybe a lack of self-respect their standards are just way too low in what they deserve maybe a combination of all of this they don’t hold them to this standard and on this episode I’ve got a bunch of insight warnings and advice and a bunch more great quotes on the oath to the Constitution from the founding generation that we can’t afford to ignore any longer but first of all before getting to that welcome and thank you for joining me here on the path to Liberty my name is Michael bolon with the 10th Amendment Center and this is the show for Monday November 4th 2024 let’s start out with some text from the Constitution here the Article 2 Section one Clause 8 Clause 8.1 oath of office for the presidency before he enter on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will Faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and for everyone else pretty much in office there’s this which is in article 6 they don’t spell out the exact text of that oath and that has gone through legislative changes over the years but here’s how it is in the Constitution the senators and representatives before mentioned and the members of the several State legislatures and all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution but there’s a caveat no religious test and I’ll discuss this briefly a little bit later on the show no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States and so as I mentioned they have changed the text of that oath over time here for example from the United States Senate they put it this way I do solemnly swear or affirm and we’ll discuss affirming here in a little bit as well that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic enemies of the Constitution what is that all about that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and Faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter so help me God so this oath of office and there was some debate over it some people didn’t like it some people didn’t like the context or the text of it but it was so important to the vast majority of the founding generation that it was the very first Act passed by Congress and it was the first law signed by the first President George Washington that was an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain Oaths it was signed into law June 1st 1789 and it prescribed this is from the National Archives blogs it prescribed the text of and procedure for the administration of the oath of office they write that the ACT mandated that the oath be administered in the following form and this is the original version I do L swear or affirm as the case may be that I will support the Constitution of the United States and it was a simple straightforward oath oath they uh point out that fulfilled that constitutional requirement in article six this is the first law passed by Congress now in essence the founding generation understood the oath as basically an appeal to Heaven here for example is Oliver Walcott very influential guy in the Connecticut ratifying convention this is in January of 1788 and he said the Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States this is a direct appeal to that God who is the Avenger of perjury such an appeal to him he said is a full acknowledgement of his being in Providence an acknowledgement of these great truths is all that the gentleman contend for and James ell who was one of the top legal minds of the time in the North Carolina ratifying convention top legal scholar he was nominated to be one of the first associate justices on the Supreme Court by President Washington and he describes it he says according to the modern definition of an oath it is considered quote a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that from which will bind his conscience most so this was uh basically an appeal to say well you know if you believe these things and you don’t follow your oath you are going to have some problem was a some kind of an outside pressure and here from Rob nen in an old paper that he wrote a law review paper the original meaning of The Establishment Clause it’s very interesting stuff if you want to get really deep into it he points out that the view that Oaths and theism were necessarily connected was more than just merely a view it was considered the law the essence said of an oath was an appeal to God and to witness the truth appeal to God to witness the truth of one what one said thus the oath of an atheist according to the founders received no recognition or well James Madison had some thought on this as well the English courts ruled so prior to American independence so this was part of the legal tradition the uh system of Precedence under the unwritten British constitution but American courts he said also acknowledged this Prin as late as 1823 and if you want to get into that this is a very long paper you can get a little bit more detail on some of the things that were covered and I think that brings me right back to Governor Morris’s great quote this is in the Philadelphia Convention in July of 1787 again if their Duty their honor and their owes will not bind them let us not put into their hands our Liberty and all our other great interests but he continued and he said two other things he said if these ties will bind them we need not distrust the pra practicability of the rues so people were debating like oh how do we approach this what’s the right way of doing it he’s like look if you have people of Duty and honor and they’re and they’re taking an oath to follow something and you buy them you have to be less concerned about some of the particulars but if they can’t if we can’t find people that will be bound by their Duty their honor and their OES he says let us have no government at all and I know that Governor Morris was not trying to threaten us with a good time there but the principle really really hits home when you think a country a union of states that really acts more like a singular Nation the way it wasn’t supposed to be a union of states with over 300 million people if you’re struggling to find just a few hundred people a tiny tiny percentage of the entire population just if you can’t find a few hundred people or one person five people that will follow their oath all the time in every situation the Constitution every issue every time no exceptions and no excuses what’s the point of giving these people trust over your Liberty and all these other great interests you’d be better off without them in office at all so but seriously though without threatening us with a good time if these people don’t have any honor what’s the point and even an oath of falty to the British king to the founding generation was seen as a reciprocal oath it wasn’t a one-way Street you just yell something out there and that was it no in a 1775 sermon Moses ma described it like this he said there is also what is called a legal Allegiance ex provision legis that is by and I always get the Latin stuff wrong so my apologies on that that is by positive institution as the oath of allegian Allegiance taken by the subjects wherein they swear to be to Bear all true and faithful allegiance to the king so total falty to the king obedience and we don’t think of it as a two-way street really but this is how Moses described it which is a counterpart to the king’s coronation oath whereby he swears to protect his subjects in all their just rights to abjure prop popery and maintain the Protestant religion to govern the kingdom and administer Justice according to the laws of the realm so they’re taking an oath today to administer uh their office according to the laws of the Constitution and nothing nothing else now as a quick aside a lot of people have asked me over the years why oath or affirmation why isn’t it just oath and Wikipedia I thought this was fascinating as usual they get part of it right and part of it just they don’t know what they’re talking about and here’s how put it the Constitutional language gives the option to affirm instead of swear while the reasons for this are not documented which is absurd it may relate to certain Christians including Quakers who apply this scripture literally quote but Above All Things my brethren swear not neither by Heaven neither by the Earth neither by any other oath but let your yay be yay and your nay nay lest ye fall into condemnation so there were some people uh primarily Quakers but menist I believe is the other uh the other sect that also would not swear an El but they could affirm that they agreed with certain things now Wikipedia says you know it might relate to Quakers but we know that this was a discussion about Quakers all along here for example just a few months after the shot heard around the world in 1775 Lexington and Concord this is now into August George Mason wrote an ordinance for establishing a general test oath and he said it is now become indispensably necessary by an appeal to Heaven because the British were pushing an oath and making deals hey we’ll protect you if you join up with us and you swear falty to us reaffirm that and a lot of people were joining the British military at that point and here’s George Mason it is indispensably necessary by an appeal to heaven to enter into a more firm Union for our common defense and to distinguish those deserving our protection from such as our enemies to our Just Cause And he continued this is the end part of the oath it’s pretty long but this part I thought was interesting I do declare that I will defend and support this Colony against all invasions and insurrections whatsoever that shall or may be made against the rights and Liberties of America according to my abilities and pursuance to or pursuant to ordinances of General convention so so help me God now a lot of people think that that only that phrase at the end came much later but we see George Mason using this in Virginia in 1775 in the height of the American Revolution and the early part of the war for independence but added this provid it always that the people called Quakers shall affirm to the same effect and also subscribe the same you can find references to an oath or affirmation in regards to Quaker all over the place during the American Revolution you can also see oath or affirmation included in various state constitutions revolutionary ones and even Alexander Hamilton uh his hated internal tax the whiskey tax it included this phrase about oath or affirmation regarding Quakers I think in five different places for example they shall attest by the same the Same by oath or being a known Quaker my affirmation so the notion that we have no idea why they included that maybe it had to do with Quakers is absurd I just wanted to point that out now not everybody was on board with the oath under the Constitution and it doesn’t mean that they were opposed to the idea for o although some people thought it was just absurd and it would be kind of a false security but a vast majority of the people on the Anti-Federalist side they just didn’t like the wording in conjunction with what they saw and has way too much power being delegated to the federal government or the new general government or what they saw as a national Consolidated Government under the proposed Constitution this I believe was John John Smiley in the Pennsylvania ratifying Convention pointing out that article six Clauses two and three are concluding Clauses that the state governments will be abolished so in other words there will no longer be a union of states it will be a singular national government and as Patrick Henry warned a singular government over such a great territory will absolutely destroy the Liberties of the people that’s what he predicted and here it says the oath here required is contrary to the oath required by the Constitution of Pennsylvania no member of the assembly will hear after take the latter oath so they’re being asked to take two o’s and maybe an oath in one of the state constitutions had something competing so they were very concerned about that on the Anti-Federalist side here’s Luther Martin also in the Philadelphia Convention he made this motion to strike out the words requiring such an oath from the state officers he did not want to see the state officers taking an oath to support the constitution for the United States that was for the members of the government of that uh United States under the Constitution so he moved to strike out those words from state officers within the several States observing that if the new oath should be contrary to that already taken by them it would be improper so what if they already took an oath and now they’re being forced to take another oath and maybe there’s a conflict between the two o’s you can’t do that and he said if coincident the O’s already taken one will be sufficient you only have to take one here’s William Finley in the Pennsylvania ratifying Convention pointing out that this is a Consolidated Government I’m not getting into that debate here but this was part of the discussion on the Anti-Federalist side and he said it was Will abolish the state governments or reduce them to a shadow of power and first of all he points that from its organization just like Patrick Henry mentioned at the beginning of the Virginia ratification debates in June of 1788 here in December of 1787 he says we the people not we the states and one of his supporting arguments that says this becomes a singular national government under this system or this is how it’ll play out he said the oath of Allegiance shows it to be a consolidating government so that was a proof of centralization rather than federalism here’s Brutus I believe this is Brutus in his second Anti-Federalist essay saying it is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby but positively expressed that the different state Constitutions are repealed and entirely done away so far as they are inconsistent with this the proposed Constitution with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof or with treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States there was no such situation really anywhere close to it under the Articles of a Confederation and people like Brutus thought what that was really really bad another Anti-Federalist who did not really like the uh the situation of the oath was malan and Smith in the New York ratifying convention July of 1788 he wanted the oath to be reciprocal because if state officers had to swear an oath that they would defend the constitution for the United States even though they weren’t part of the government that was formed under that why wouldn’t the federal people are part of the federal government the general government why don’t they have to actually take an oath to support the state constitutions that was an example of how they were saying things were getting way out of balance so he made a proposal that all the officers of the United States ought to be B by oath or affirmation not to infringe the Constitution or rights of the respective States and I think in the Philadelphia Convention it was Hugh Williamson that made a similar suggestion as well in the summer of 1787 now I should mention while I’m here that all these original Source documents that I’m mentioning uh plus some articles and essays and papers like that they will all be linked to in the show notes I am just plowing through this pretty quickly today it’s an interest is the season I guess uh but it’s a very interesting time and I think this is really really important stuff to consider when we’re thinking about steps forward in the coming days months and years but this will all be linked to in the show notes so you can read more in context on your own time rather than just taking these kind of uh highlight highlight reel of the top quotes and insight and Alan Mosley does a great job of organizing the blog post for every episode at he includes not just all the Show links but all the various platforms on of course we live stream on the mainstream ones uh like uh Facebook and YouTube and x and Linkedin and twitch we also live stream over at rumble.com and odyssey.com we archive the video and the audio only podcast Edition all over the place and if we’re missing from one that you would like to see us on please do let us know over at Team 10th Amendment center.com or a comment in the archive that will help out as well so Allan will get that blog post organized and I will get it published over at 10th m m center.com paath to Liberty a couple of hours after this live stream is done anyway so we were discussing how some of the Anti-Federalists we’re not a big fan of the Clauses with the oath to the Constitution not necessarily against the idea of an oath but because they didn’t like the structure of the system now some on the Federalist side also opposed the oath but for different reasons like for example Roger Sherman discussing resolution 14 this is also on the 11th of what’s the date here I should know 11th of June 1787 resolution 14 requiring Oaths from the members of the state governments to observe the national Constitution which is what they were discussing it and laws being considered Mr Sherman opposed it as unnecessarily intruding into the state jurisdictions he thought that was problematic now James Wilson is the guy who most famously was opposing the oath and he said he was never fond of Oaths considering them as a left-handed security only you don’t have to go after us left-handers Mr Wilson but he said a good this is an interesting point a good government did not need them and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported so if you think about it it’s very similar to what Governor Morris had to say like if it’s structured with people who are good people you don’t need the oath because they’re going to follow the rules anyways and if you’re having a bunch of people take an oath of office and you can’t find the proper people to administer it well you can’t support could not or ought not be supported at all and I think that’s a very important perspective Edmund Pendleton in a letter to James Madison just a few weeks after the end of the Philadelphia Convention also suggested that OES were basically useless he said my last criticism he will probably laugh at and this is what he’s you know this is a segue into discussing various parts of the Constitution he said though it is really a serious one with me why require an oath from public officers yet interdict all religious test their only sanction so he’s saying like well if you’re swearing an oath and you can’t prove that you’re passing a religious test how do we know you’re really believe it he said but since a belief of a future state of rewards and punishments can alone give conscientious obligation to observe an oath it would seem that A test should be required or Oaths abolished James Madison in response he didn’t necessarily agree or disagree overtly he took a very interesting uh he had a really interesting perspective on this and he responded a few weeks later he said is not a religious test as far as it is necessary or would operate involved in the oath itself if the person swearing believes so this is kind of a contradiction in the Constitution they’re saying no religious test but then they’re requiring O’s and if you don’t believe in a higher power for example then well what are you swearing an oath to what are you being held account accountable to that’s the argument that James Madison is saying he said if the person swearing believes in the Supreme Being who is invoked and in the penal consequences of offending him either in this or a future world or both he will be under the same restraint from perjury as if he had previously subscribed a test requiring this belief so in essence what Madison the father of the Constitution is saying well there is a religious test in at least not necessarily overtly but it’s there he said on the other hand if the person in question be an unbeliever in these points and would not withstanding take the oath a previous test could have no effect he would subscribe it as he would take the oath without any principle that could be affected by either so he’s basically saying like if you find someone and they don’t support one or the other that you know they’re just going to say what they’re going to say that was James Madison’s take now the vast majority of the founding generation were certainly on board with the principle behind the oath to the Constitution and Edmond Randolph in the Virginia ratifying convention he was the first Attorney General George Washington’s Administration he described it like this the senators and representatives members of the state legislatures and executive and judicial officers are bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution but the important part is he said this only binds them to support it in the exercise of the powers con constitutionally given it you can see a similarity to the arguments over the supremacy clause people today tell us well all federal law is always supreme but they always leave out the caveat that it requires uh Federal Acts to be in pursuance of the delegated powers of the Constitution otherwise they’re not Supreme at all that’s the other way around and it’s a very similar approach that Edmund Randolph is taking here regarding what people swear an oath to support he said although officers Etc are to swear that they will support this constitution yet they are not bound to support one mode of worship or to adhere to one particular set sect it puts all sects on the same footing so that’s how he’s really describing the religious test versus the oath or affirmation kind of controversy or inconsistency here he say look we’re we’re basically saying that we’re going to be okay with any religious sect and there is not any particular one that’s required that’s how he was seeing uh a religious test you can’t require someone as they had to do in Great Britain what they fought a long Bloody War part of what they fought a long bloody war to escape from was that type of a religious test now archbald mlan in the North Carolina ratifying convention put it like this can any government exist without Fidelity in its office officers well they certainly can and we are living proof that the government continue to exist because there’s almost no Fidelity in any of the officers of the government but that’s a side note a mistake by archal here he said ought not the officers of every government to give some security for the faithful discharge of their trust well certainly but how do you hold them account he said the officers are only to be sworn to support the Constitution and there for will only be bound by their oath so far as it shall be strictly pursued and he continued this is July of 1788 no officer will be bound by his oath to support any act that would violate the principles of the Constitution and that brings me to what I think is the essential question what does that mean in practice whether it was at the time or today or sometime in the future what is it mean to keep and honor one’s oath to the principles of the Constitution to the text of the Constitution to the duties of one’s office well St George Tucker in his view of the Constitution of the United States this was published in 1803 he was also a leading legal mind of the time I believe this was one of the most cited works on the original legal meaning of the constitution in law in the early part of the Republic but uh someone else can probably tell me for sure the citations at the Supreme Court and things like that but it was very popular very widely read and very widely understood here’s how Tucker described it acts of Congress to be M binding and this is interesting how he was and maybe I was thinking of this before as I was putting my notes together yesterday it really is similar to the discussion over the supremacy clause as well and he’s tying it all together here acts of Congress to be binding must be made pursuant to the Constitution otherwise they are not laws but a mere nullity or what is worse acts of usurpation usurpation to the founding generation is stealing it is theft of power because the people are the F people of the several States under the Constitution are the Fountain of all power and government is only supposed to be acting as their agent government is only authorized to exercise those powers that are delegated to them in the Constitution nothing more end of story and so anytime they go beyond those limits they are stealing power anyways Tucker continued with this the people are not only not bound by these acts of usurpation but the several departments and officers of the governments both federal and state are bound by oath to oppose them for being bound by oath to support the Constitution they must violate that oath whenever they give their sanction by obedience or otherwise to any unconstitutional Act of any Department of the government so for really thinking about the oath of office every single thing that the federal government does that any government does that goes beyond the limits of the Constitution if you swear an oath to protect and defend it even just by mere obedience to it you have violated that oath and under that standard I would say pretty much everyone is violating their o today everyone has been violating their oath for a long long time at least in my lifetime because it’s impossible to be S simultaneously part of the largest government in history an organization that goes beyond the limits of the Constitution 247365 there isn’t a moment that they are not violating the Constitution or the state governments which are mostly on their knees doing whatever the general or central government wants them to do it’s impossible to be part of that system and stay faithful to one’s oath to the Constitution at the same time and here’s how Tucker put it talking about legislators if he concurs in an unconstitutional act he is guilty of usurpation and contempt of The Sovereign Authority which has forbidden him to pass the bounds prescribed by the Constitution so anyone I guess not just legislators someone who signed something in the law and says oh I really was pressured into this you know it’s a must pass and there’s a bunch of stuff that I don’t agree with in here but I’m going to sign it anyways because this is so important that is violating one’s oath everyone who passed it in the first place they are violating their oath everyone who administers it uh in the Deep State enforces it they are all violating their oath and they’re guilty of usurpation contempt of The Sovereign Authority which is the people of the several states he said he has violated his oath this is Tucker again and the most sacred of all duties but to Omit him at the next election is not an adequate punishment for such a crime man I had a really really interesting quote here from Lysander Spooner on the oath of office that I thought would be interesting to to pull up but I guess I did not add it to my uh links here for the show but I will link to it in the show notes it’s from his no treason number six published in 18 70 But ultimately government runs schools just like basically everything I cover on this show they just don’t teach this stuff because I think they want us to have a standard that government uh officials they take these O’s of office and then it’s up to the government to determine if people in the government have violated the rules given to the government by the people of the several States this is flipping the entire system upside down instead it should be up to the people to hold them to a stand standard to keep them in check to refuse to support the people who steal power who violate this trust as Governor Morris James Wilson and so many others have told us and that’s why we work so hard every single day here at the 10th Amendment Center to reach and teach more and more people about these essential founding principles from the founders and the old revolutionaries how to enforce the Constitution and Liberty When government refuses to do so which is again 24736 5 and nothing helps us do this work more than the financial faith and support of our members if you got a couple of bucks at that dirty government fee out from the unconstitutional Federal Reserve please consider throwing it our way we punch way above our weight class here at the TAC 10th Amendment center.com members is where you can join us we also have annual 5-year and lifetime options I’d be very grateful to any consideration you can give to joining us as a member today and there’s also a bunch of free and easy peasy ways you can help us spread the word especially by triggering algorithms of the mainstream platforms uh by hitting the like button subscribing getting notification leaving reviews on podcast platforms comments in the archives etc etc again I really really appreciate you spending some of your time with me today I hope you enjoyed this episode I hope it made you think I hope you learned something all that is way more important than anything and I hope it was at least interesting to watch or listen to and I hope to see you next time here on the path to Liberty for

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

In a world where political discourse is dominated by big tech, cable news, and social media influencers, free speech is constantly under threat. From censorship of conservative viewpoints to the silencing of dissent on controversial issues, we are witnessing an alarming trend of restrictions on the most fundamental rights of any citizen in our Constitutional Republic: the right to speak freely.

But what does free speech truly mean in today’s context? Are we protecting it, or are we allowing authoritarian ideologies like socialism, communism, fascism, and dictatorships to erode it?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is crystal clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Founding Fathers understood the importance of free speech in preserving a free society. Without it, the ability to challenge government, expose corruption, and advocate for truth would be crushed.

Yet today, under the guise of protecting people from “misinformation” and “hate speech,” powerful institutions are curbing our ability to express ideas that do not conform to their narratives.

Do we not see this as a slippery slope toward authoritarianism?

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, be the ones who decide what we can or cannot hear, not a centralized body or corporation?

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social media was once hailed as the bastion of free speech. It allowed ordinary individuals to share their thoughts, advocate for causes, and hold the powerful accountable. However, over the years, major platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have become gatekeepers rather than facilitators of free expression.

Algorithms favor certain ideologies, while alternative viewpoints—especially those with a more conservative or constitutional slant—are shadow-banned, demonetized, or outright censored.

Does this not resemble the tactics of monarchies, communistic or fascist regimes that control what their citizens can see and hear?

Shouldn’t a true democracy allow the free flow of ideas, even if those ideas challenge the status quo?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

Many social media influencers, especially those aligned with constitutional values, have become modern-day warriors for free speech. Yet, they face intense backlash, censorship, and de-platforming for voicing opinions that challenge globalist or left-leaning narratives.

How many times have we seen influential voices banned simply for questioning government policies, election results, or health mandates?

Isn’t it concerning that only a select group of elites can decide what is “acceptable” discourse?

While some influencers fall in line with these restrictive policies, others have emerged as champions for free speech, using their platforms to resist censorship and uphold constitutional rights. The question is: Will we support these voices, or will we allow them to be drowned out by corporate and governmental censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

At the heart of socialism, communism, and fascism lies a common tactic—control over speech. These ideologies have historically sought to suppress dissent, limit expression, and create a monolithic narrative that favors those in power.

Look no further than authoritarian regimes past and present, where dissenters are imprisoned, media is state-controlled, and free speech is criminalized. Can we really ignore the striking similarities between these oppressive ideologies and the current state of political discourse in America?

Is the suppression of speech today not a precursor to more draconian measures tomorrow?

Should we not fight to preserve the right to freely express political, social, and economic ideas?

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

At Truly Right View, we believe in the unwavering defense of free speech as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We reject the encroaching influences of socialism, communism, fascism, and any form of dictatorship that seeks to undermine this fundamental right.

Our platform is dedicated to bringing you uncensored news, analysis, and commentary from a truly constitutional perspective. We provide a space where voices that have been silenced or marginalized can be heard, and where you—the citizen—can engage in the free exchange of ideas.

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Do you value free speech?

Do you believe that the right to express your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs should never be compromised, no matter how controversial they may be?

If so, we invite you to join the fight for free speech by subscribing to the Truly Right View channel and newsletter. Stay informed on the latest developments in free speech advocacy, political commentary, and constitutional rights. Together, we can stand against the creeping influence of censorship and authoritarianism.

Why wait for others to defend your rights?

Become part of a movement that fights for the truly free society envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.

Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?

The choice is yours.

Subscribe to the channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.