Joining us now is Barry Hinckley. He has an organization and website Redeclaration redeclaration dot org, and he's talking about a redeclaration of independence. So I don't that it'd be good to have him on. We just had Donald Trump is talking about rejoining Britain. As I guess we're going to rejoin Britain, maybe we should talk about a red deeclaration. It's a kind of appropriate timing. But you started this quite some time ago. Tell us a little bit about it, Barry, welcome.
What's great to be with you. Duvide. We started this in October of twenty three, and it's hard to think now in March of twenty five, that seems like a lifetime away. Many of us have been fighting for the values that made this country the great meritocracy. It became in the City on the Hill for many years. Then
I'm from New England. My great grandfather was actually the commander of the mint Men conquered Massachusetts, eighth grandfather, and so I was born on April eighteenth, you know, the day that prescotten Dawes and our vere road, my families farm and conquered to alert them the British for coming. So, you know, great day to be born on a significant date in our history. So I've always been tuned into
the country and its founding values. And obviously, if you're listening to this show, you know we've strayed a long way from those founding values, you know, before the New Deal, and certainly way after the New Deal with a massive expansion of the federal government. So this was our attempt to point out the simple fact that our federal government is way out of design tolerance and it's gobbling up our liberties and our freedoms that we are supposed to
enjoy in this republic. And that's why we laid down these ten tenants of what we call the Redeclaration of Independence to try to, you know, really persuade our elected officials in Washington to represent we the people and not the interests of the deep state.
Well, I agree, And of course they talked about how the king had swarms of officers to harass our people and to eat out their substance. I mean, they're going off rank supply. Now, how do we get these people's attention? What is it that? What approach are we going to take? Why did you take this approach as a matter of fact, and what are you hoping to accomplish with redeclaration dot org.
Well, if you go to redeclaration dot org and you read the ten tenants, you know we've actually been quite surprised. Now we laid these tenants down. In October of twenty three, about twenty two hundred people signed the Redeclaration of Independence, about seventeen hundred of which of whom agreed to have their names posted publicly. As you sign, your name gets posted publicly once we verify your real on the website.
About five hundred we're so afraid of just having their name associated with the founding values that they wanted to be anonymous and tells you everything you need to know. If you live in supposedly the freest country of the world and you're afraid to post your name publicly for fear of retribution by the former administration, thankfully, we're saying the former administration, that tells you everything you need to know.
So our goal was, you know, to do the same thing that the first centers of the declaration did, which is to put your name on the dotted line and sign for values that we believe will get this country back on track. And we did that after Actually I wrote I wrote it after a very inspiring speech I heard Tucker Carlson give at ISI and Wilmington, Delaware in October of I encourage all your listeners to look that
speech up at the inter Scholastic Institute. Tucker gave the first speech he gave after coming out of his retirement, before he launched the Tucker Carlson Network. And we, me and a few guys, friends, compatriots wrote this down and the goal was to get as many people people as possible to sign on the dog line and then inspire our elected officials to take these tenants to Washington and see if we can reverse the course of the federal government, you know, eating our liberties alive.
Well, I agree, I agree. There were no anonymous signers of the decoration from the pennants. Nobody put down a non or anonymous or anything. As a matter of fact, John Hancock became famous for writing his name so large. He had probably the most to lose. He's one of the wealthiest people in the US at the time. And of course it wasn't the US but the colonies or whatever you want to call it at the time, and he wrote his name as big as he possibly could, and so it became something of a legend to put
your John Hancock on something. But people are afraid to put their John Hancock on a redeclaration. And what does that tell us? Tells us how intimidated everybody has become by being branded a racist if they disagree with you politically or whatever. You know, that is a standard tactic. But again, you know, when we look at the and we go back into history, it was I looked up the date. It was common Sense by Thomas Pain. Came
out January the tenth of seventeen seventy six. Of course, it was July fourth that the Decoration of Independence was put out there, so this was something that was percolating through society. Now, of course, the Decoration of Independence was written from the top down by the elites, but there was also Thomas Pain's common Sense spread very very quickly throughout the colonies. They had a very high literacy rate and people ate it up eagerly, so there was a
grassroots of support there. So I guess my question to you is, how do you see this developing? Do you see this developing from the grassroots, the bottom up, or is this something that is going to Is there anybody that you can think of in Washington that is going to be aligned with even these ten points that you put in this shorter redeclaration.
Well, interestingly, we know that it got all the way to the top. You know, I sent it to Tucker, who I have developed a relationship with since writing this, and they kept passed around to Levek and other people. Robert F. Kennedy I sent to. I also know him personally as well. Uh. And so we know these ten tenants made it to the top. Uh. And if you look at what's happened since we've written them and since President Trump was sworn in in January, Uh, you know,
they're either getting talked about or they've come true. Like you know, the ninth tenant, I think it's the eight or ninth. Uh, you know, eliminated the Department of Education. We kind of threw that one in there as really wishful thinking. Well, sure enough, here we are the Department of Education. You know, let's see, you know, how the court system addresses this executive order. But you know Trump has already taken action that way. He mentioned a balanced
budget in the State of the Union. We know we have DEI out of the military, another one of our tenants. He is pulling us out of the you know, these globalist organizations, which is make making sure that Americans are only subject to American law, not international law. He's already taking steps through tariff to level the playing field for American workers. You know, he has mentioned a single day
paper ballot voting. You know, our last request on that tenant is to actually make Veterans Day have some real impact and make Veterans Day voting day. Make it a national holiday, so we can not only on our veterans, but people have the day off and take the whole day to vote, not have to try to scramble in before or after work. So, you know, I think about
six or seven of them have already been addressed. You know, a balanced budget amendment has not been addressed yet, but has been talked about, as you know, in his State of Union. So we've made an immense amount of progress with these ten tenants since October of twenty three when we publish them, and in fact, we're pleasantly surprised at how much progress we've made.
Now you mentioned DEI and you mentioned RFK Junior about this at the beginning of the program. I was talking about the new CDC appointment that was put in by Trump, who was first there was somebody who had been a vaccine critic. He is a medical doctor who talked about connections between autism and vaccines, but he was essentially vetoed
by a pharmaceutical senator, Republican Cassidy. And now Trump has just announced as his nomination the person who is serving as the interim CDC head, somebody who at the CDC. We see that they have now purged DEI off of their website, which is good. I'm glad that they're getting DEI off. The problem is that they're still approving on an emergency use basis more vaccines and still continuing on with a childhood vaccine schedule. But do you see that
as a victory. What do you think is really happening with RFK Junior, with HHS, with CDC, with Trump in that area.
Well, you're talking about a trillion dollar plus agency, and battleships don't turn on a dime. There's a lot of work to be done, and there's a massively entrenched financial and governmental institution enforcing the status quo. So it is not going to be easy to get America healthy again. To make America healthy again, RFK has many foes that are highly paid to block his path.
But he said, but he's okay. As part of his condition to get a pointed, he said, he's okay with a vaccine schedule that's being put out there, and nobody is banning, not at the state level, not at the federal level. Nobody is banning these mRNA shots. As a matter of fact, they're working to take it to the
next level. And the CDC director has been involved in using artificial intelligence, just like Larry Ellison, who was featured by Trump with the Stargate Project a day or so after he became president, talking about how they would use artificial intelligence to custom design genetic vaccines for people. You know, I look at this and I see a massive poisoning that is happening in our society, and yet we are thinking that we've got victory when we just get tend
to stop talking about this gender insanity. I don't you know, it seems to me like they're majoring in the miners, if they're doing anything at all at this point.
Well, I'm just asked you to be patient because this isn't a battle. This is a war.
Yeah, what is a war does? And it's been going on for five years, this vaccine war, and I'm sick and tired of seeing people die from this. Oh it's been going on for decades, absolutely, But the Trump shots have been going on for five years. And Trump is still pushing this mRNA poison out on people. That's the thing that concerns me about it. So I'm not as salient as you are that there's going to be anybody
in Washington that's going to do this. I see this as rearranging the deck chairs and trying to rebuild trust and a government that cannot be trusted. We never had the founders ever trusted government. Patrick Henry said, trust no man bind them down with the chains of the constitution. And yet this entire operation of RFK Junior and the rest of them is about building blind trust and people who've been murdering us for money.
Well, let me finish here. Two things they'll say to you, I guarantee you r f K Junior is going to do one thing and one thing well as it relates to vaccines and taking on this massive pharmaceutical industrial complex. He knows, you know, and even Trump alluded to this in his State of Union address. When you talk about one in thirty six kids have autism now and it used to be one in ten thousand, Okay, point look no farther than vaccines and poisonous food. Okay, So we're
zeroing in on the targets. But what RFK will do, I promise you, is he will arm mothers and fathers with information so they can make a decision to opt out of these vaccines. That will be the first step. Okay, And you know Rome wasn't built in today when you've got five six decades of vaccin scenes and huge, massive, multi billion dollar complexes, you know, pushing them down doctor's throats.
If you limit the ability for doctors to make money on procedures, but you know, incentivize them to make money on pumping kids pull of shots, guess what you're going to get. That's going to take a long time to unline that, and I believe that's what's going to happen. It's going to be first wage with information, and that information will arm voters and parents with what they need to roll the stuff back and make our food, in our in our medicine healthy again.
Well, I hope that's going to be the case. I think that we've got enough information, quite frankly, and I think what we need is common sense.
Yeah you might and I might, but not enough.
People do, right, I agree, But I don't think that a savior in Washington is going to help us. I think what we need is some common sense, and we need a spirit of independence that is going to rise up from the bottom, not from the top down. I don't see these people when I see them going to Washington. I see them going these confirmation hearings. They're literally selling their soul. They are contradicting everything that they've talked about for their entire life. They deny it in order to
get the position. And when you do that type of thing, you don't have people of character that can lead this country if they begin by denying what they have said all of their life. I just don't see that happening. But let's talk about the Department of Education. Now. This executive order to get the Department of Education down, this is something that I've not yet talked about today. But what do you see changing at the Department of Education?
If they're going to continue funding from Washington, does it matter that we have a bureaucracy up there. If they're going to send the money, how do you view that as a Is that a real shutdown of the Department of Education if they're going to still provide the money.
Well, once again, you're talking about three almost three decades worth of precedent. They have to get unwound. And it's not going to happen overnight.
So I mean they're shutting down those way, they're shutting down spending it with DOGE overnight in some areas, right, So I mean they could just say we're not going to continue. When you look at four hundred million dollars just to Columbia University, which Trump shut down because they had protested Israeli politics. But why are they getting four
hundred million dollars? I think it's incredible. It's the money that needs to stop, and it needs to stop just because the government doesn't have the authority to do it. We could have a balanced budget amendment, but you know, how are we going to balance that budget if we're going to be sending Ivy League colleges hundreds of millions of dollars A year.
I don't understand you're not going to find an argument for me there, and you're certainly not going to find an argument for me that it makes a lot of sense to send money from Ohio to Washington just to get it back again, knowing that people are going to clip q poms the entire way. You know, I say, keep it in Ohio in the first place. You know, I think if you follow what Trump's doing is talking about eliminating income tax for people making less than one
hundred and fify thousan dollars. You know, the byline is that money doesn't go to Washington and stays in the state. Right, So certainly the remedy, in my opinion, is exactly the design of the founders, which is, you know, in power the states to control their own destiny, you know, within the formation, the foundation of the formation of our republic. So I think unwinding the Department of Education is not
once again an overnight task. You have to clip away at it and eventually get rid of it because there is going to be a massive amount of resistance. I mean to keep in mind, the Department of Education is often seen as the arbiter of elections because if you have let's say, four million voters that are either employed as teachers or related or married to a teacher, or in some type of you know, administration role in the public school system, and you have a country tied fifty
to fifty on elections. Those four million people decide who becomes the president. So it's a very it's a sacred cow for Democratic Party. They launder an immense amount of money through union dues into their elections. Uh, they are gonna they are not going to go down without a fight. And I think, you know, it's the old old saying, how do you eat an elephant? It's one bite at
a time. But you know, the Department of Education is in our sites, and I mean the sites of true Libertarians and Republicans, and I think we will grind it down, but it's not going to happen overnight. But I agree with you that you know the the you know, I have I spent a ton of money for my daughter to go to George Washington University in Washington, d c. And it was a giant scamp. She learned more in high school than she did in college. So it's a very very good high school.
It wasn't fortunately for you. It's probably good she didn't learn anything at George Washington, as they would have taught her the wrong stuff. It's really it's really about Indoctrinasian more than it is about education in so many ways, as you're not wrong, yeah, as you know and so not wrong. It's that's why the government wants to keep it.
It's foot in it, and that's why it wants to control the purse strings because ultimately, both this government as well as subsequent Democrat governments, Democrat run governments will set the curriculum. If they can fund it, they will define what it's going to be. But let's talk about some of the ways that they're going to do this. For example, we know that when they have shut down anything they've
shut down immediately, they've had lawsuits brought against them. And so you talked about states rights and how we have separation of powers, and I said state rights, I met state powers, how we have a separation of powers and checks and balances and that type of thing. But also
within the federal government. The big issue with all of this stuff, and the thing that I think they're going to have to address or they won't get anything done, is going to be judicial supremacy if you can have judges, and I know that they've talked about the fact that we can't have one judge who's going to make policy for the entire nation. But it is through that whole judicial supremacy thing is going to have to be challenged.
Along the line is I think of what Andrew Jackson did when he said, the Supreme Courts made their decision, let's see them enforce it. I think if the Trump administration doesn't do that, none of the actions that they have taken are going to last. And I don't think they're going to be able to do any of the kind of cuts and restructuring that they would like to do. What do you think about that? And do you think that they will directly challenge judicial supremacy.
The Trump administration? Yeah, yeah, you think, yeah, of course. I mean he's going to fight every step of the way and when we need some precedent here, and I think they pointed out that there's already been some presidents said by the Supreme Court. But they're challenging, you know, they meaning, you know, the judiciary, you know, liberal activist judges. Let's be let's be real about what's going on here,
are ignoring the president and throwing down roadblocks. I think many people understand what's really going on here is they're trying to slow down the Trump train, and they feel
if they can bind this thing up in court. And these are all derivatives from Yale Law School, uh, you know, Harvard Law School and all the other massively liberal lead law schools, they figure if they can slow the Trump train down long enough and they can somehow, you know, pull out some type of a coup and the midterms, they can bind this thing up and Trump won't succeed in right sizing a republic. I think that's the game that's getting played here. And I think they're completely ignoring
what is precedent. They're completely ignoring the law, and they're just trying to slow things down. Throw a wrench in it, if you will. I think Trump's going to fight it every step of the way, and he should.
Well, I don't know if you will, but you know, we've seen some of that. I saw a little bit of hope when you had a judge that said you can't deport these criminals back to El Salvador, send them to El Salvador, whatever, and they did it. Anyway, and I thought, Okay, well, now that's what they need to do. But then they came back and they said, but we're doing this and staying within the orders of the judges and that type of thing. So I still don't see
the fact that they really want to fight this. I know, then the first administration you had Trump, who was opposed. He ran opposing Dhaka. But when he got there, the deferred action and tr arrivals, when he got there, that was not even a law that was passed by Congress. That was an executive order by the Obama administration, not even by Obama so much as by Napolitano, who was
his attorney general. And he abided by that when you know, he asked permission of the judiciary and they said, no, you can't get rid of the previous executive order from the previous administration. It was absolutely absurd. So I'm not really sure that they're going to do that. I hope that they do, And I think that when we talk about how one branch is exercising supremacy over any other branch, that is really a violation of the separation of powers. As I'm sure you would agree, right.
Certainly agree you know, and as far as it relates to Trump's first term, I think he admits he was naive and he had a lot of the wrong people around him. A lot of them were you know, swamp creatures that you know, had an interest in the status quo. And this time he's come in guns blazing. I'm quite I think a lot of people are quite with the
pace of play here. In fact, he's pushing the establishment way out of his comfort zone, which is why you know they're hitting back, you know, so hard, because they realize it's a fight for life and death of the deep state versus the return to our Republic.
I agree. Well, you know, when you talk about secure our elections, I absolutely agree with what you have in person, single day elections with a valid I D. I think that is, unless we have that, I'm not voting again. I'll run for Congress, but I'm not voting again unless.
We've got it. They'll vote for you.
Yeah, that's right.
Several times.
That's right.
I've told the story you've ever lived.
That's right. I've told his story before of a friend of my brother in law who went in North Carolina where they got a very long voting period and no id he shows up to the poll on election day and they said, you've already voted. No, I haven't said yes you And all you have to do is gove them a name and an address. You and this other person at your addressing goes, well, that's my mother. She's been dead for several years. So yeah, they will vote
for you. But so we have first hand experience with that. Talk a little bit about term limits because I remember when neuke Ingrich had his contract with America, and that was one of the ten things in the contract with America. It was the one thing that he did not pursue when they got there, because I actually even got through a line item veto, and of all things, it was Rudy Giuliani who challenged that and took it to the
Supreme Court and got that overturn. But when we get to term limits, do you see any sign whatsoever that there's anybody in Congress that is interested in term limits?
Sadly no, because it's the best job they've ever.
Had and they're making it better all the time. Yeah.
Yeah, I mean I ran for US Senate in twenty twelve against Sheldon white House, and so I know the inside of the game pretty well. And these folks have the scales tipped so far towards the incumbency that the only way you ever get them out would be two term limits because the deck is completely stacked. Unless they get a photograph of you with the little boy, you're not going anywhere.
So that's that's how you get elected to Congress. And if you've got a photograph of you with a little boy, I think that's the guy.
That's how Big Pharma rolls you because they had a photograph. That's another. But you know, so you know we need term limits. We need it badly. It's you know a lot of people talk about it. It's the one blind spot that the founders missed. I mean, they couldn't be perfect. They were certainly prophetic, but they weren't perfect, and they missed this one. They never thought that people would be
so selfish. And let's face it, if you have stayed beyond your useful life, you know, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, you know read the list out. You know, Joe Biden, you know you are so out of touch with what the average American needs and you end up getting you know, you're you're trading in trillions of dollars, you have innumerable powers, and uh, you know, you make
one hundred seventy five grand a year. That leads to corruption and we see it over and over again, and you know how you know, I was talking to my wife last night. I was like, how did we end up in an era where the average American thinks it's okay that, you know, two years out of office? You know, politicians retire worth one hundred and seventy five million dollars, like it would have been obvious corruption, you know one hundred years ago. You know, you know, I'm a Yankee
from New England. You go, you serve, you go back, and now we have you know, Olympia Snow Republican from Maine worth fifty million dollars as a as a career senator. How'd that happen?
Yeah?
Like, so we need term limits, we needed badly. I have. I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll enforce it on themselves. Let's face it, Congress in forced term limits on the president when they had a chance. They didn't do it on themselves, you know after FDR.
So that's right, yes, you.
Know, hopeful thinking hopefully we'll have a true benevolent leader that gets it done.
I think part of the problem is, you know, we look, I think we've we've got a really good metric for the amount of corruption that is in Washington when we look at the amount of money that spent on the elections, and you know what, twenty the two thousand elections you had, George W. Bush spent one hundred million dollars and Al Gore spent seventy. They spend more than that now on Senate and House races, and we have so much concentration
of power even in those Senate and House races. Because one of the early things that was ignored from the in the Constitution from the very get go was limiting the number of people that could be represented by a congressman. And they got rid of that and they fixed the number of congressmen rather than fixing the maximum number of people that could be represented. So that that's really kind of gotten out of hand. It seems like that is something that is right for reform as well.
What do you think, Well, big concern I had as it relates to, you know, attribution of Congress congressmen and women is you know, what's happening in California, for example, where you have millions of undocumented people. And this was the huge you know, miss and Trump challenged this, you know, in his first term when he challenged the Census Bureau counting everyone in the state and still having that apply to how Congress is apportioned, you know, in the House.
And he lost that in the Supreme Court. And that, you know, I had. I was living in Rhode Island at the time. Rhode Island's population was shrinking. We had two congressmen, and I had and I keep in mind, I had run for you a Senate in rodewaland so I knew who the It's only a million people in the state, you know, everyone in politics, and I knew that all the hardcore leftist activists, they were all working
for the census. They showed up at my house multiple times trying to find people because I had a large house, trying to find people to add to the roles. I guarantee you they counted everyone, and beyond everyone's wildest dreams, Rhode Island somehow held on to a Congressional seat that everyone predicted we'd lose. So they still had and and
so you know. That's what I really am concerned about is the uh, you know, is the massive amount of illegals here in this country that are apportioned into Congress. So think about that. If you're taking you know, millions or hundreds of thousands of people and you're giving them Congress people and then electing them, you know, to Washington and then they can vote how taxpayer dollars are spent. That's real power and that's what's really going on. That's what really worries me. Quite frankly.
Oh yeah, oh yeah. It absolutely is a It is a government created problem what we have with the border and with immigration. Again, it remains to be seen what is going to happen with all this stuff. It's early days and we've seen a lot of things that are moving. But as you point out, you know, the court is
coming in and shutting down all these different actions. I think it is going to require a direct confrontation about judicial supremacy or all this stuff is just going to be playing the to the fan club and then getting overturned by the judiciary within a few months or whatever. I think that's all going to be reversed everything they've done. If they don't directly attack this judicial supremacy if they
don't re establish a separation of powers. I don't think any of this stuff is going to work or will last, but hopefully we'll see what happens with this. And again, the website is zu redeclaration dot org and people can go there, take a look at the document and thank you for what you do. I really do appreciate you standing up and focusing on these founding principles Barry and Barry Hinckley is our guest, and he has set up
redeclaration dot org. I hope that people can see this, and I hope they get the courage to sign their John Hancock on what it is that they believe. That's one of the key things. We've got to not run away from what we believe. Thank you so much, Barry, appreciate it. Thank you for putting this up and putting your name there. Appreciate that.
Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Thanks for having me