#333 Election Integrity Will Save Our Republic w/ Col. Conrad Reynolds (Ret. USA)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:24):
Welcome to the State of Freedom.
is Tuesday, September 16th at 10 a.m.
Central.
I'm Danielle Walker and I'm joined by my friend and co-host, Chris Alexander.
We are coming to you live on Voice of the People TV and Radio Network X, Rumble, YouTubeand Facebook.

(01:46):
Wherever you're watching, give us a like, give us a thumbs up.
It helps us out.
share it, ah give us a rumble rant if you're on rumble and comment in the chat.
We want to hear from you.
If you're joining us for the first time or if you've been with us for a while, I want tojust share what we're about.
We're about telling the truth.
We're about displaying courage in what we say and what we do.

(02:07):
And we're about taking action according to the truth.
And so if ah any of those things resonate with you, welcome.
If they don't resonate with you, maybe they will by the end of today's show.
uh Joining us today in courage and in truth is Colonel Conrad Reynolds.
He's a retired US Army intelligence officer who's fighting for election integrity and he'shosted the weekly show, the Colonel of Truth.

(02:33):
Welcome Colonel to the show.
We're so honored to have you with us today.
Well, thank you for having me.
It's an honor.
Absolutely, it's our pleasure.
And let me get into the scripture of the day.
It is Philippians chapter 1 verse 27 through 30.
And it says, uh this is the passion translation, it says, whatever happens, and it'sapostle Paul writing to the church at Philippi and he was in prison at this time.

(03:03):
It says, whatever happens, keep living your lives based on the reality of the gospel ofChrist.
which reveals Him to others.
Then when I come to see you or hear good reports of you, I'll know that you stand unitedin spirit, in one spirit and one passion, celebrating together as conquerors in the faith
of the gospel.

(03:23):
And then you will never be shaken or intimidated by the opposition that rises up againstus.
For your courage will only prove as a sure sign from God of their coming destruction andthat you have found a new life.
For God has graciously given you the privilege not only to believe in Christ, but also tosuffer for Him.

(03:43):
For you have been called by Him to endure the conflict in the same way I have endured it.
For you know I'm not giving up." And Paul was, like I said, Paul was writing this letterto the Philippians from prison.
He was imprisoned for preaching the gospel of Christ Jesus' kingdom.
And as we, as I think back over the last couple of days, obviously the assassination ofCharlie Kirk.

(04:07):
has been so um just shocking and it's challenged me personally.
I'm sure it's challenging you.
It's challenged me to clarify why I'm doing what I'm doing.
It's challenged me to cut the things out of my life that are not advancing the purposethat God's put in my heart, which is to speak the truth, to live with bold courage, to
take action and to encourage action that changes the world that we're living in.

(04:33):
I don't know about y'all, but I feel like a fierceness has risen up inside of me even morestrongly than before.
Defiance against evil and an unwavering commitment to the truth, which is firstly, thegospel of our King Jesus and secondly, the truth and the reality of the world around us.
So let me pray an impartation over everyone watching and listening.

(04:57):
I just pray that the Lord will bless you, that he will strengthen you, that he willclarify your calling and embolden you to do it with power.
Come what may, that you would be committed to living on purpose, in purpose, and thatgiving up would never be an option.
In the name of Jesus.
Yeah.

(05:17):
amen.
That is uh incredibly powerful.
ah You know, I've struggled, as you said, Danielle, we've all struggled with what happenedthis past week.
And I'm still struggling with it.
I'm still struggling with ah the problem of evil ah in the world and reconciling it withGod's providence and God's grace, which is really a...

(05:46):
a classic, classic uh struggle that even the greatest Christian theologians have had, ahyou know, to try to reconcile to some degree what we know is God's infinite goodness, yet
the presence of this type of evil in the world.
But I know that he has a plan, and I do believe that good comes out of it, and I thinkwe're already starting to see it.

(06:10):
ah I think that this is probably
the defining moment in the history of our republic right now because I think people acrossthe country are rising up and understanding finally what is at stake and specifically the
character of the enemy that we have to defeat.

(06:30):
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind at this point ah about what we have to do ahand someone who has been doing that, ah you know, relentlessly and consistently is Colonel
Reynolds, who, uh as you said, is a longtime military veteran, decorated combat veteran,by the way, and also uh served for a long time in military intelligence.

(06:55):
There's no one better to have on our show today.
And Colonel Reynolds, it's such an honor to have you with us for a little while today onthe State of Freedom search.
Well, thank you for inviting me.
It's my first time on the show.
And I've heard a lot of great things about you guys.
So thank you for having me.
Yes, sir.
One of the things, you know, the overwhelming tendency in my own heart is not particularlyproud of it, but it is the initial spirit that welled up inside of me was a spirit of

(07:26):
vengeance, a spirit of retaliation, a spirit of just going scorched earth in everypossible way on these people for what they did.
And my initial reaction, even though I'm trained as a constitutional lawyer and Iunderstand the importance of free speech, ah I put that momentarily on the back burner

(07:48):
because I had such a rage about the way these people reveled in glee over theassassination of Charlie Kirk.
And I was struck by your uh admonition on that very issue.
ah that you posted recently about how we have to be very, careful not to engage on the farother extreme and perhaps over correct this by passing these hate speech laws or in any

(08:20):
way suppressing speech that is constitutionally protected.
And I thought that was such a timely admonition.
Talk a little bit about oh the importance of nonetheless preserving
the core right of free expression in our country.
Well, the freedom of speech, obviously, the first amendment speaks for itself.

(08:43):
That's why they put it first.
You got to have freedom of speech.
We've got to have that.
We don't need the government coming, I believe, dictating exactly what we can and can'tsay.
But I think that what you just said a second ago resonates.
And that is people have woken up.
They see what is going on.

(09:03):
We are in a battle here.
There's no question about it.
But it's the delusional world versus the real world, truth versus delusion.
And before we were living in a world in the last four years, five years, or even longer,where we were all just made to shut up.
And if you said anything, you were going to get fired, you were going to get canceledbecause the mob was going to come after you.

(09:26):
And people simply allowed themselves to stay in the background.
I think that's over.
I think that's over now because now we understand what's at stake here.
If we continue to allow that, then what we're going to do is going to get shot.
You're going to get people get killed.
Charlie Kirk did not deserve what he got at all.
That is horrible.
And the people dancing on his grave, the people dancing on his memory, um they'll beremembered by all of us.

(09:52):
They're going to be canceled, but it's going to be because of us realizing that we have tostand for truth.
That's what this show stands for.
And I think that that is what the message is.
Don't be afraid.
Charlie Kirk was not afraid.
He knew that he was being targeted.
He had said that many times.
He knew that there were people that hated him.
But now we really see evil versus good.

(10:14):
We really see it.
And that's why it's such a shock because now everybody understands what we're facing andhow we're going to beat it.
And you beat it with truth, but you don't do it with hate speech laws.
That's just my, that's my opinion.
And so, and so we're going to, we're going to keep fighting for that.
Yes.
And one of the reasons why we don't want to institute hate speech laws is because at thatpoint, the government becomes the arbiter of what is hate speech and what isn't.

(10:46):
And that is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent.
know, Robert Jackson, who prosecuted at the Nuremberg trial, I know you know this, ColonelReynolds, he was a Supreme Court justice, prosecuted.
you know, he said, when you
violate the constitutional, well, when you violate core due process, even for theseatrocious Nazi war criminals, when we do not give them uh due process, a trial and a

(11:14):
conviction, we are creating a poison chalice that ultimately will reach to our own lips.
And that's why I thought what you said about this.
I'm sure that you're overwhelming instinct as well.
was just to go scorched earth, was just because some of the things that I saw on this,Colonel Reynolds, were so vile, so despicable, so evil that I, I mean, I've seen a lot of

(11:43):
bad things in my life, but this absolutely stunned me that these people would have giventhemselves so completely over to the dark side, so completely over to evil where they are
celebrating the death.
and the tragic death in front of his family of a man who did nothing but express hisopinion in a peaceful way and invite dialogue.

(12:10):
That is what is so heartbreaking about this.
It is extremely heartbreaking.
agree with you.
Believe me, I had the same emotions that you and probably everybody else watching thisprogram had.
Yeah, you want to go scorch earth.
Your instinct says, I must destroy this enemy.
I must destroy this evil.

(12:30):
That's the instinct that we have.
But we're a civil society and we are a nation of laws.
And so we have to back up a little bit because that's why we are the greatest nation inthe world.
I've seen other countries, Great Britain,
Germany that are using these hate speech laws, they're starting to go down that road torestrict you saying anything.

(12:50):
And the question is, who makes that determination?
And so I think that we don't need to go down that road.
And that's why I think it's important that we keep free speech, we keep our firstamendment, and we continue to speak the truth.
And it doesn't mean that these people who say these things, there's not consequences.
There should be consequences for their actions.

(13:11):
All of these people who are getting fired,
Believe me, I don't feel sorry for them a bit at all.
um Just because, you know, they can say what they want, but there are consequences tothat.
so, and I want to embolden these corporations and companies that to do the right thing.
And the right thing is to, you don't want people like that representing your country, getrid of them.

(13:35):
And so, I support that.
And I think that's the route that we need to take in this country.
and that it should not be, but we have to make the distinction that it is not based upon aconstitutional violation.
It's based upon violation of their own protocols with respect to how people associatedwith those agencies or those companies are supposed to conduct themselves.

(14:00):
And that's the basis for the action against them.
It's not because of a constitutional violation.
And we always have to remember that, you know,
The First Amendment to the Constitution exists not to protect the speech we like, but itexists to protect the speech that we hate, or otherwise it doesn't mean anything.
So anyway, we don't need to beat this anymore, but I just was very taken by your very uhthoughtful post on that issue, and I thought it was very timely, and it spoke to me.

(14:32):
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, and it's an important conversation to be having because people do want to pile onand I'm in agreement with you.
We can cheer on their firings all day long, but they shouldn't be hauled off and arrestedunless they're inciting violence.
And to me, that's the line, right?
That's the point at which it clicks over from being uh free speech into being somethingelse.

(14:57):
Agree, agree.
The clear and present danger doctrine.
Right.
Exactly.
That's where it comes in.
Colonel Reynolds, with your former intelligence hat on, do you get the sense that the FBIhas the right guy or is on the right track if there's some kind of bigger operation behind
this 22 year old?
think they're on the right track.
There's a lot we don't know.

(15:18):
I mean, there's a lot of speculation out there.
I think that we just need to be a little patient and allow the FBI to do the work.
I have worked for many FBI agents, the ground agent.
They're great people.
And believe me, they want to get to the bottom of it as much as you and I did.
So I don't see a bigger picture at this point.

(15:39):
I've always said, this is strictly my opinion based on...
historical precedents, said, you know, it's probably three to five people that knew aboutit, involved with it.
Normally these people don't have the courage unless they're being egged on and pushed by agroup.
They get their strength from the group.
And that's what I've seen in the past.
And that's what I suspect that this may be.

(16:02):
And I suspect that it was somebody from that side of the world, the transgender world orthe gay world.
It appeared to me that may be.
The hate had to be so bad.
This young man, this 22 year old man was willing to take that risk to kill this guy.
They hated him 100%.
And they were being egged on though by other people.

(16:25):
The real question is, what did they know and when did they know it?
It appears that some of them knew beforehand because of some of the posts that they made.
Like, guess what's coming?
It's going to be, trust me, it's going to be a big thing in the fixed few days.
So they were, they all had knowledge.
that this was several of them, apparently had knowledge that it was going to happen, thatthey can always claim that they just thought it was a joke.

(16:51):
but, but you know, that's going to be for law enforcement to do a full investigation, tofind out there may be in people that would help, that helped him, you know, who knows who
wrote the messages on the bullets.
Maybe each of them wrote one.
I who knows?
So, time will tell.
And I think the whole story will come out and I don't think it's going to be real long.

(17:11):
I think he was probably talking three, three weeks maybe.
And I think we'll probably have the full story, but that's my, that's my personal opinion.
What do you tell people, Colonel Reynolds, who have lived through, uh and even if theyhaven't lived through it, certainly understand the history of our government not being
completely truthful when incidents like this happen?

(17:34):
You know, JFK assassination, the COVID epidemic, where we were lied to and things werecovered up left and right.
I think the general respect for our government now is at historic
lows, particularly among conservatives.
Many don't believe anything the government says.
What would you say to them within the context of this investigation of Charlie Kirk andthat we can have confidence in what the government is doing?

(18:04):
That's a great question.
And I will just say that Cash Patel was a personal friend of Charlie Kirk's.
If you don't think that he wants to get to the bottom of this, I mean, I know he does.
And I know that Dan Bongino, these are good people.
These are people of character who are in the leadership positions.
Again, there's a lot of people that work in the FBI, but I do not think for a second thatthey're going to somehow skew the evidence to protect anything.

(18:33):
I think it's going to be completely transparent.
really do.
Now, other, I would not have said that about other people.
I've not, the other administrations.
mean, James Comey, there's no way in the world that anything would have been transparent.
I mean, and people saw that when you saw Hillary Clinton had a server in her basement thatwas getting code word classified information and she was not punished.

(18:56):
Nothing happened to her or any of the people that worked for her.
And
If I had done that in the military, I would still be in jail, in Leavenworth right now.
You would still be there.
But she got out, but they never went after her.
That is why people lose confidence in their government when they see it right in front ofthem that there's a problem here.

(19:18):
There was a law broken and that this person was given a pass.
And so I understand people's anger, but I would just say that President Trump and hisadministration, I honestly believe, are doing everything they can with the people at the
top to be transparent and trying to make sure that the people have trust in what they'redoing.
And so, at this point, I think they have lived up to that.

(19:42):
Regardless of the Pan-Bondi thing and the Epstein and all that, you'll have a lot of thatgoing on.
I personally believe that the heart is in the right place and they're trying to do theright thing.
I haven't been proven wrong yet, so we'll see what happens.
But right now I'll them the benefit of doubt.
And I didn't realize that, uh, Cas Patel had a close personal relationship with CharlieKirk until you just said that.

(20:03):
I didn't know that, um, which, which certainly militates in favor of a, of a, of acomplete and thorough investigation into this.
you know, that gives, that gives me comfort.
so we'll see what happens going forward.
And, uh whenever things develop about this going forward in the future, we definitely wantto have you.

(20:23):
back on on that issue, just to talk about, give us your thoughts on it as things moveforward.
But I want to move uh for a second now, Colonel Reynolds, to the election security issueuh in the United States.
You may not be aware of this.
I know you're generally aware of what's going on down here in Louisiana.
We have a secretary of state who is absolutely obsessed with investing a massive amount ofour money in electronic voting machines.

(20:49):
And it's interestingly interesting that on the day you would come on,
to the state of freedom is the day that the Dominion Voting Systems Company is doing theirdemonstration right here in Baton Rouge for the Secretary of State.
It's supposed to be open to the public, so we'll see what happens.
um But uh she continues to insist that the Trump administration has endorsed her effort toinvest $150 million in electronic voting machines.

(21:18):
You played on your podcast not too long ago.
ah a podcast that we had produced, I mean a clip that we had produced of Nancy Landry inthe legislature talking about that.
And I think I'd like to, we'd like to play that for you now for a minute and then get yourthoughts on it once again, because I think it's critically important, your feedback on

(21:39):
this.
Yeah, let me play it now.

(22:46):
disgusting.
That's my first word.
It's disgusting.
What she said is not true.
It's not true.
ah And so she may have gotten a letter, I think that individual was talked to, because Iknow what the Trump administration wants.
I know what the president wants, and he does not want electronic voting machines.
So she can spin it any way she wants.

(23:07):
It is not what the president wants, and it's not what the administration stance is.
I can tell you that I know that for a fact and it's going to be coming out.
In fact, if you just go back and look at the executive order, the one that was signed onthe 25th of March of this year, 14284 or 248, which was very clear that they're trying to

(23:27):
get rid of any machines that have QR codes or uh barcodes.
uh All of these machines that she's talking about have that.
He specifically said none of that is going to be allowed.
It has to be with the VVSG, which is the voluntary voting guidelines, 2.0.

(23:48):
None of these machines at all in America can meet that standard.
So right now, what she's telling you is not true.
It is fabrication.
Apparently, she wants to spend $150 million of your dollars.
Now, let me tell you what's going to happen in the next few weeks.
It's going to be absolutely 100 % clear that they cannot have these machines.

(24:10):
So she better not sign any contract that is going to obligate the taxpayers of Louisianabuying any machines because they're not going be able to be used in any federal election.
That's going to happen.
I 100 % believe that.
And so...
that on is that Colonel Reynolds?

(24:31):
Let me press down on that a bit.
Do you have that based on your your gut instinct or do you have that based on ahintelligence?
Well, I will tell you that we've worked, Wilhuff and myself, and of course we representthe American Voter Integrity Initiative.
We have worked hard with the administration and with certain people to get things to thepresident, language that would go into a new executive order.

(24:57):
And we've been doing this since February.
The idea, of course, is that we want to get ahead of some of the people who are likeLandry, who are trying to make it look like
They can use these machines to answer your question.
Yes, I know that this is what they're looking at.
There's going to be an executive will come out.

(25:18):
All you have to do is look at what the president put out about three weeks ago in his uhpost.
There's truth post.
Did you see that?
Well, he was very clear.
He said, I'm going to lead the effort and I want the Republican party is going to leadthe, we're going to lead the effort and we're going to get rid of these mail out votes and
we're to get rid of the machines.
He was very clear on that.

(25:38):
That was just three weeks ago.
So how does that square with what she's saying now?
It's ridiculous.
He is not supportive of her position at all.
And let me ask you this.
uh There is a big resistance to what the president is trying to do in the RepublicanParty.
Okay?
And so how do I know that?

(25:59):
Tell me one Republican governor or one Republican senator or representative that has comeout and said, I support the president, not one.
Not one.
think Colonel Reynolds, why is that?
oh
That is, uh well, it could be the $64,000 question.
I can give you my opinion.

(26:19):
And my opinion is that over the last 20 years, these voting machine companies havecaptured the state legislatures and the governors.
For whatever reason, they're very scared.
I've had several conversations with congressmen and women on Capitol Hill, and I'vebrought this very thing up.
I've said, look, you can cut all the funding right now with Doge.

(26:43):
You could cut all the funding for the machines.
And I was told that, well, these machine companies have a lot of power here in CapitolHill.
That's what I was told by a sitting congresswoman, right?
So now, so think about that for a second.
They know that they're very powerful.
They know if they go up against them, they may lose.

(27:04):
Why is that?
Why do they think that?
It's because in my opinion, these machines can be manipulated.
They know it.
They know it can be.
They just know if they play the game, they'll stay in office.
If they don't play the game, they won't.
That's my opinion.
So can I prove that?
Well, we're going to find out.
theory, Colonel, what if the alternative theory to that though is that the reason whythey're hesitant is because they're being funded, they're being financially enriched by

(27:32):
these companies.
Well, we know that these companies, they underwrite the Secretariat of State'sorganization.
And they underwrite them.
They all go in for a big conference, and their gold and platinum sponsors are thesemachine companies.

(27:53):
We know that.
We also know that they are very active at the county level.
They also use a thing, some of these...
reasons these states are not fighting as much is that you have a thing called theAssociation of Counties.
Do you all have that in Louisiana?
We have one in here in Arkansas.
It's called the Association of Arkansas Counties.
There is a national association of counties in Washington, D.C.

(28:15):
And they leverage that because they have an umbrella organization for the Association ofCounty Clerks, Association of Sheriffs, Association of whatever.
And they help fund a lot of the things at the county level.
And so
They're voluntary.
For example, we have 75 counties in Arkansas.
Every county in our state belongs to this association.

(28:38):
And the motto is, you know, 75 counties, one voice.
So they basically are a 501c3 that have inserted themselves into the fact that theycontrol these counties.
They control them financially.
When we were trying to get paper ballots in one of our counties, the Association of Statescame out and threatened them and said, if you

(28:59):
vote to go to paper ballots, we are going to uh ensure that we're not going to help you onany grants for your bridges, for your roads, federal grants.
We're not going to help you with any of that.
the counties are scared to death.
Well, you know, they don't want to do it.
So they're using all of these tools to leverage and bully and push counties to use thesemachines that most of them don't even want to.

(29:23):
They don't want them.
So we understand the only way out of this is to get rid of
machines.
It can be done today.
And we've told the president about this.
This can be done today.
Right now, we have the ability to say, under current existing law, that these machines donot meet the law because they have foreign parts in them.

(29:48):
you have critical infrastructure that was brought into the—all the electronic equipment inelections are considered critical infrastructure.
And that was done by President Obama.
In January of 2017, fast forward, you go to 2019, there was an executive order thatPresident Trump signed that basically said any foreign, any critical infrastructure that

(30:10):
has foreign parts, electronic parts in them that are made by foreign adversaries, China,Russia, cannot be used.
Cannot be used.
The secretary of commerce, Harold Lutnick, right now can say these machines cannot be usedin anything in elections.
We could do that now.
And we are encouraging the president.
to go down that road.

(30:30):
Okay, he can do an executive order, but you and I both know that's going to be enjoined,it's going to be challenged.
They're going to try to drag it out as long as they can until President Trump is out ofoffice.
But he doesn't have to worry about it.
He doesn't have to use that.
He actually can do it by the current existing law.
And once he does that, the states are going to have to figure out how to run an election.
And we presented the president with several items that we absolutely think have to happen.

(30:55):
And I can read them off to you.
Number one, you got to use a government ID.
A government issued ID in order to prove who you are.
Only US citizens should be allowed to register, period.
Only pre-printed hand-marked paper ballots are authorized.
No machines at all.
uh Ballots must be hand counted at the precinct level.
No machine counting.

(31:17):
Only paper poll books will be used during elections.
No electronic poll books.
You can't have that.
No mass mail-outs are authorized except for
Oversea military, you have to call it Unicava, and absentee ballots.
When you have a legitimate reason, that's not a problem.
But we don't want mass mail out.
Some of these states, that is a huge problem.

(31:37):
We don't have that one in Arkansas, but it is in Arizona and few others, Oregon.
Voting locations must consist of small precincts.
1,500 to 2,000 registered voters.
No vote centers anymore.
And then we need to eliminate, as much as we can, early voting.
We'd like to go to a one day vote, early voting, one day election.

(31:59):
We'd like to do that.
Some states have been able to have two or three days, like Oklahoma, they have three days.
It's worked out very well for them.
But we know that the longer you give the voting process, the more time they have tomanipulate the votes.
And there's going to be a book that's going to come out.
And I want your listeners to hear this called Stolen Elections.
It's by Ralph Pizzullo.

(32:21):
It's going to come out in October.
It's called Stolen Elections.
It is extremely important that you read this.
And I think you ought to take it down, take the book down to uh Landry and then read it.
You will see quickly why these machines cannot be trusted.
None of them.
And it gives you the origin.
shows you the very beginning of how all this started and how the uh coding that goes intothese machines was originally written and why it's still there today and all the

(32:51):
vulnerabilities that it presents.
It's really an amazing book and I know the guys that are in it and the guys that actuallydid the investigation, the guy that did some of the human intelligence work, recruiting
some of the people that actually wrote the original code that's still being used in ourmachines today.
And it's very important that people understand that.

(33:14):
Yeah, and Colonel Reynolds, hold on Chris, when-
him this last question, Danielle, on this and then we got to go on.
So Nancy Landry was specifically questioned in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committeehere in the last session.
Senator Blake McGhaz said, you are committed to the fact, I just want to make sure we havethis on the record, that assuming we go forward with electronic voting machines, there's

(33:38):
not going to be one component, one component part in
in whatever machine vendor you use that is manufactured in a foreign country.
Can you commit to that?
And she said yes.
So my question to you, Colonel Reynolds, is, is there any current electronic voting systemmanufacturer on the market that does not derive parts from foreign countries?

(34:08):
There you go.
No.
And all that is going to come out.
You're going to see that in the next few weeks.
You're going to see, in my opinion, you're going to see a report that's going to come outuh that will completely document the things that I've just said.
And it will be very in depth about the vulnerabilities that these machines have, the partsthat exist in them, and the fact that there's no way

(34:37):
absolutely to know we have a fair election.
There's no way.
And so we have to go to a system that's completely transparent and open.
And the only way to do that is a hand-marked paper ballot.
All of that is hand counted.
All of the experts, and I've interviewed all, not all of them, but probably the vastmajority of them on my show.

(34:58):
I mean, we're talking to people that are not from the same political persuasion as I am.
It doesn't matter.
This is not a Democrat-Republican issue.
This is an American issue.
We need to make sure that our vote counts and that it cannot be manipulated.
But right now, we don't know that.
There are selections.
It appears there are selections, not elections.

(35:19):
And so how do I know that?
It's because every expert that I've talked to said the gold standard is a hand-markedpaper ballot that is hand-counted.
And we're not doing that anywhere.
And the EAC is, in my mind, I got to be nice.
I don't like what they do because what they are doing is protecting the machine companiesand this whole system when they really don't understand and don't really care of the

(35:45):
vulnerabilities that exist.
And so it really bothers me that the EAC is not stepping forward in making sure that thesecompanies abide by current law and also abide by the executive order.
They've done everything to sidestep that.
And so it really is infuriating to me.

(36:05):
And believe me, you do not want touchscreen computers.
There's about six states that use touchscreen computers for everybody.
And when they vote, we're one of them.
Arkansas is one of them.
Where they pretty much force everybody to use a touchscreen computer that prints out apiece of paper.
Okay.
It's a receipt.
It's, say, that's a paper ballot.
No, it's not a paper ballot because you don't get to mark it.

(36:27):
The machine marks it.
And then we expect the people.
to do what is another cognitive um ability to be able to proofread, to make sure that allthe names are people that they voted for.
And even that can be manipulated because the tabulator that counts that piece of papercan't read English, can't read text.

(36:47):
It can only read barcode.
So how can I verify my vote as required by law to have an act of 2002?
I have to be able to verify that the person I'm voting for is being counted.
I can't do that if I can't read the language it's written in.
I can't read barcode.
And even in, and in, even 90, 90 % of the people who vote don't even look at the receiptwhen it comes out.

(37:12):
Most people never look at it.
They vote, it's over.
They got to leave the piece of paper there.
So even if that were the case that they could verify authentically, nobody does it.
That was scientifically proven by uh Professor Halderman at the University of Michigan inTennessee when they looked at an election.
had one.

(37:33):
They proved that.
But it is amazing that I have so many people, even here in Arkansas, we have a solid redstate.
We have the majority of the House legislature.
We have a supermajority, both the House and Senate.
We have a Republican governor.
Okay, they all are fighting me.
All of them are fighting me.
They would love to put me in jail uh for anything they can think of because they do notwant to go to a hand-marked paper ballot, something the president wants.

(38:04):
And it's been justified over and over and over.
Even Tulsi Gabbard on April the 11th of this year, in a cabinet meeting said, we haveevidence that these machines can be manipulated and there's more to come, which she said,
which basically supports
Your mandate, Mr.
President, that we go to hand mark paper ballots that are hand counted.

(38:25):
So that is where we're at.
And I'm going to tell you right now, there are a lot of forces that are against what we'retrying to do because there is a tremendous amount of money.
Think about this.
How much is it worth to be able to ensure you get the right number of people that aregoing to vote for a, I don't know, $1.7 trillion omnibus bill?

(38:45):
What's that worth?
Is that worth a billion?
Is it worth two billion?
We don't know, you know why?
Because we're not allowed to see the finances of any of these companies.
They're private companies.
We're not allowed to know who owns them, who their investors are.
You're not allowed to know.
They hide behind the corporate veil.
yeah, and we're also not really given much insight into our elected officials finances forthat matter to see how, you know, maybe we can see their campaign donations, but you know,

(39:12):
the offshore accounts I'm sure exist.
Well, here's another one for you.
Who writes the code?
Who writes the code that these machines are using?
And uh none of these companies have oh security clearances.
None of them have any background information.

(39:32):
Okay.
I think you're going to find the answer to that pretty soon.
It's going to come out.
Who is actually or where the code is actually written.
We won't know the individual's name, but we'll know the locations.
And I'm going tell you right now, it's not America.
oh
Why are we allowing this?
And I think it's time that we stand up.
Y'all need to tell uh Nancy Landry she's uh wrong.

(39:56):
And you should never allow that.
You should never allow any of the money being spent for any of these machines.
And I think that she's leaning towards what I understand, she's leaning toward dominion.
I hope it's not true.
I hope it's not true too.
I hope none of these machines companies, you know, again, you know, it's great idea.
You know, it was a great idea, you know, that, it makes it easier on the people who arerunning elections and it's very convenient.

(40:20):
And it's going to be really hard to pry that away from the people who run elections.
It'd be like saying right now, take away your iPhone and you got to go back to a flipphone.
Nobody wants to do that.
It's hard to do.
And then when you say, well, you know, it's a vulnerability, they say, well, you got toprove it.
Show me.
Well, if the system is designed in such a way that you're not going to be able to proveit.

(40:43):
Okay.
The only way you prove it is when a person is standing in front of that touchscreencomputer and they see it cheating.
They see it flip on them.
have many statements, hundreds of statements of people.
It flipped on me.
Well, what is the recourse?
What do they do?
They saw the machine cheat or try to cheat, flip it, and they raise up their hand.
You get a poll worker that comes over and says, how can I help you, Mr.

(41:05):
Jones?
Well, guess what?
I saw it cheat.
Well, it doesn't cheat.
You probably hit the wrong one.
Come back over here.
We'll let you vote again, right?
And we'll let you vote again.
And then they print out another piece of paper out of the electronic poll book that's gota barcode on it.
It goes over to the machine.
You put it into it.
That's a computer inside the machine.
And guess what?

(41:26):
That machine now knows that Mr.
Jones is voting for the second time.
Is it going to mess up?
Probably not.
See there, Mr.
Jones, no problem.
And that is what we have right now.
That's why we have to get rid of it.
And I'm telling you, it's like pulling teeth to any of state legislatures.
They have gone after the county, the one county, Searcy County, they have gone after them.

(41:50):
They've gone after the three commissioners.
They've tried to bar them for 14 years from being able to run any kind of elections basedon false accusations.
It's unbelievable.
But I am writing a book.
I'll just let you know, I'm writing a book called Duped.
And uh duped is going to be how the American public has been duped over the last 20 yearsinto thinking machines are safe and computers are safe.

(42:14):
I don't know when it will actually be published, but it's going to be very soon.
But I want it to, I'm going make it very simple.
So it's easy for people to get their brain around and understand why it is that we havefallen into this trap.
you know, people have been trying to rig elections since the beginning of time, sincethere's been elections.
They try to find ways to do that because there's a lot of money in it.
There's a lot of money in it.

(42:34):
And so, mean, you know, imagine the power you've got when you can run a whole state.
You can tell who's going to be a Senator, who's going to be a representative.
That's a lot of power and you control it.
and, and Colonel Reynolds, we see that in the state of Louisiana.
I don't know if you see that in Arkansas, but the way that our legislature has kowtowed tosecretary of state Nancy Landry's every wish this past session, uh, for all the pieces of

(43:02):
legislation she wanted passed, including silencing the voice of law abiding citizens whowant to conduct exit polls.
Uh, she, she has run.
I don't know if you can say she's run rough shot over the state legislature because shehasn't even had to, but she has certainly gotten her wish on basically every count.

(43:23):
And my only, my only explanation for that is she must have some power that we can't see.
And, and maybe I'll just make a small commercial for listeners in Louisiana right now thatwe hosted.
uh
Draza Smith last week on Tuesday, and she showed us evidence of uh in Ouachita Parish, howthe election had been controlled and manipulated based on ah her analysis of the data.

(43:54):
And her analysis of the data was only from early voting.
So this is the commercial for people.
In Louisiana, we have tablets.
Well, at least in my parish, we have these tablets.
I only recently learned that these tablets are actually leased.
They're not even, we don't even own them.
We are leasing them.
I don't know, that seems super wrong to me on like, I can't even count how many levels,but we're leasing these tablets and you press, you know, the red button or the blue button

(44:24):
and that's how you vote.
Well, I would say probably 80 % maybe of our electorate votes on, they make early votingso easy.
ah So that's the majority of our votes.
Whereas we have these old arcane machines that are probably, I'm not saying they're notmanipulatable, but they're probably harder to manipulate and they're certainly harder to

(44:47):
manipulate in real time because of their age.
So my admonition to folks.
DREs.
Correct.
As of right now, Colonel Reynolds, as of right now, we don't have anything.
We don't even have the receipt that's not reliable, as you just explained a few minutesago.
Currently, right now, as we sit here, there is no paper element in our voting.

(45:12):
It's all in the machines.
But let me just finish, so.
have those.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
And those have been pretty much outlawed everywhere.
I think you're the last state to use them.
Yeah, probably.
That would check out.
But um my point is with upcoming elections for parish wide uh votes and for uh municipalvotes that are coming up in October, do not do early voting.

(45:38):
If you have to, do a mail-in ballot, an absentee ballot.
And if you can at all, vote in person on the day of because I really truly believe thatwhat's uh
early voting is really just hammering us and getting us nowhere.
I mean, it's getting us the opposite direction we want to go.

(45:58):
So that's my.
you know, we can, you know, there's a whole lot of talk about how we got to where we'reat.
And, you know, it all started back in 2000 with the presidential election with GeorgeBush, think, you know, the hanging chads, you know, but they were blaming paper.
It wasn't paper.
was the problem, you know, during that timeframe.
It was, it was, was, yeah, it was the, hang, but there's, there is the video.

(46:22):
I want you to watch.
If you get time, it was done by Dan Rather.
and he did it in 2006.
Have you seen that video?
we have.
I think I have seen that.
We've tried to push that out to everybody to look at it, but it was the people who workedat the paper company called Sequoia, right?
Sequoia paper company.

(46:43):
And they made the paper for Broward County, and the paper did not meet the specificationsof the kind of paper.
You know, in order to have a punch out, the paper has to have a certain tensile strengthto be able to, when you hit it, it pops out.
But that paper did not.
That paper was done, and none of the supervisors, they all knew something was wrong.
And none of them at the plant, we're talking the paper plant here, said, I'm not going tosign off on that.

(47:07):
I don't want to have anything to do with it because something's wrong here.
But the supervisors, the people who own the plant went ahead and signed off on it and sentit anyway.
And it went to Broward County and that's where they had all the problems.
And if you go back and look, they were trying to get machines in Florida big time andpeople in Florida were not having it.
They weren't doing it.
They had to have a crisis.

(47:28):
They had to have a reason.
And Dan Rather's report in 2006 that
interviewed all of these people who worked at the plant.
It is absolutely enlightening because you can look at that and go, wow, that is probablywhat they did.
What they did is they created a crisis in order to be able to bring in machines.
But I don't think that they realized that it was going to be so big that it would affectthe whole country.

(47:52):
So they quickly got in and wrote legislation to get four billion dollars.
And they wrote the HAVA Act to be able to get machines in every state.
If they wanted them, right.
They didn't force them.
just said, look, we've got all this money.
We'll give you new machines, make it convenient for you.
And that's what they did.
And so all the States then started doing it.

(48:12):
And there was a lot of things behind the scenes, but you know, one of the things, uh, doyou remember the name Chuck Hagel?
Chuck Hagel, Chuck Hagel.
Well, well, ES &S is in, ES &S is in Nebraska.
Chuck Hagel.
was a US Senator from there.
You probably know that.

(48:33):
And eventually became a Secretary of Defense for Obama back in 2012.
But when he was running for the Senate on the Republican ticket, he was running for aSenate, and he was one of four running in Republican primary.
I think it was 1996.
And he won.
No one ever knew who he was.
It was unbelievable that he won.

(48:54):
And everybody started asking, wow, later on, do you know what his job was before hedecided to run?
He was the CEO of ES &S.
All the machines in the state who counted the votes was his former company.
And his treasurer was a guy by name of Mike McCarthy, a multi-billionaire out of Nebraska.

(49:17):
And guess what?
He's the one who owns the investment group right now that owns ES &S.
But they rent it.
so guess what?
do know who owns ESNS.
You were talking about not knowing the ownership.
We do know who owns ESNS, Colonel.
say it's a McCarthy group, which is a financial services group, but we don't know theirinvestors.

(49:40):
We're not allowed to know who actually invests in the company.
They only list the three major, the CEO and the current CEO, a guy named Burke, and thentwo other people, the financial service officer and then an operations guy.
They list them, but they don't list all the other people who invest.
They are protected by the corporate veil.

(50:01):
You don't have, they don't have to share that.
So we don't know, Colonel Reynolds, to make sure we're getting this correct.
We don't know who owns these machines, the real ownership we don't know, and something wehaven't mentioned yet, and I want to get your thoughts on this.
We also do not have access to the actual source code uh inside of these electronic votingmachines.

(50:25):
At least we don't in Louisiana.
The only people who have access to these source codes
which from what I'm understanding, I'm no computer guru, is a critical part of being ableto determine whether there was manipulation or what exactly is going on in these votes.
What are your thoughts on the fact that election officials and citizens for that matter donot have access to the source codes that determine and govern the entire exercise inside

(50:56):
these machines?
And yet this is one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, but we don't haveaccess to the source codes.
they protect that by saying it's proprietary and these are private companies.
These are private equity funds.
McCarthy, I was telling you about him, uh it's a private equity fund.
And that's what he runs.
And that's what really controls ES &S.

(51:18):
And same thing with these other companies.
It's pretty much the same thing.
And the code that's used is pretty much the same thing.
What you're going to find, I believe, in my opinion, most of the code...
is runs on the backbone of the original code that was developed years and years ago.
And the stolen elections book will explain all of that, how that started and how it ispretty much the DNA of all of the current oh code that's used in these machines.

(51:47):
And there's a lot of vulnerabilities in these codes that are there on purpose.
It's there on purpose.
As we were told by some of the engineers who originally wrote the first code.
I talked to some of them and they were very explicit that some of these vulnerabilitieswere designed, built in.
so it makes it to where it's possible to get into the machine, to be able to do what youneed to do and then back out of the machine.

(52:13):
And there's no evidence that you were ever there.
So when you're looking for evidence, you're not going to get it.
Number one.
like Alex Haldeman say, Colonel Reynolds, that these systems can be manipulated by verysophisticated criminal cyber attackers and election officials will not even be aware that

(52:35):
it is occurring, that's a fair statement, that's accurate.
That's completely accurate, 100 % accurate.
so, and so he knows what he's talking about.
uh But again, you know, I've talked to Dr.
Andrew Appel, someone else who's very, you know, he's PhD, Princeton, University ofPrinceton, charges computer science department, another guy uh who also understands.

(52:59):
In fact, I've got a letter that all of these computer cyber experts gave to uh NorthCarolina.
They also did one for Pennsylvania.
to explain to them that the gold standard has to be a hand-marked paper ballot.
That's the only way.
You cannot fully secure a machine that has a computer in it.

(53:19):
You cannot.
And so here in Arkansas, I think your audience ought to know this, they passed a lawsaying, if you go to a hand-marked paper ballot, it's got to go through a machine first,
immediately.
In other words, it's got to go through a machine, and then you can do a hand count, right?
We agreed to, even though we really couldn't fight it much, but they wanted that aspect ofit going through a machine.

(53:46):
We said, okay, fine.
As long as there's a hundred percent hand count of every race.
In other words, you've got to do a hundred percent hand count.
You can't go through the machine and do a spot check.
And that's what they do.
They do a spot check, which is basically useless.
And in Arkansas, and you'll
like a risk limiting audit, Colonel Reynolds, is what you're talking about?

(54:06):
limit audit on anything that has a touchscreen.
You can only do a risk limit audit on a hand-marked paper ballot that you can go in.
That is possible.
In fact, Philip Stark, who invented risk limiting audit, is a friend of mine.
He's a guy I've had on my show several times.
I even brought him here to Arkansas as an expert witness.
uh He is not a conservative.

(54:27):
He's just an American.
But he was an advisor to the EAC, the Election Assistance Commission, and appointed byNancy Pelosi, no doubt.
Right?
So he's not, like I said, a conservative, but he agrees 100 % on what we're saying.
And he said, you you cannot trust these touchscreens and you cannot do a risk limitingaudit at all with these machines.

(54:51):
but they misquote him, they act like you can do one when you can't.
And he's very upset about that with the EAC or any other body that's trying to use hismethod to validate the use of these machines.
He said, you can't do it.
can't do it.
Tulsi Gabbard mentioned, you go ahead, Danielle, sorry.
Sorry, uh my sister is a cyber security uh engineer and she's gone to uh some of these bigevents they have in Vegas where they do the hackers village for voting and stuff like

(55:22):
that.
And I was just thinking as you were talking about this that there's in the secretary ofstate's office or in the dominion office.
I don't know that they have ever talked about having like a group of cyber uh
security experts that are watching the election.
know, these companies are getting, big companies are getting hacked every single day ofthe week.

(55:46):
I believe, uh who was it?
We just had on Chris that told us that the Department of Defense is getting hacked over amillion times a day.
So there's obviously Colonel Sean Smith.
So just to think about the fact that we are getting hacked in every sphere that there's anopportunity to be hacked.

(56:07):
But this one place, this one little area called elections, this is like some sacred spacewhere there's no hacking that could possibly happen and there's no oversight for, you
know, there's not even anyone watching to see if there is hacking happening.
Is that a fair assessment?
I haven't heard of anybody watching for the hacking.

(56:30):
No, there is none.
I think Sean Smith is 100 % right, Norj.
And outside hacking is a real threat to all of our election systems.
But I'm, to be honest with you, I'm more concerned about the insider threat.
I'm more concerned about inside threat of manipulating our elections.

(56:52):
I really am.
And I think that...
about the people, who are ostensibly administering the elections on the inside.
No, I'm talking about a process where the people who are ministering elections have noclue.
They just know what they've been told.
They repeat everything that they've been told.

(57:13):
we got to do a logic and accuracy test.
It shows that machines are safe.
They believe that.
They don't have a clue what that is, but they believe it.
They believe everything that they've been told by the uh machine companies, but they don'tuse critical thinking when, just like you said, why can't we see the code?
Why can't we know who wrote it?

(57:34):
Why can't we have outside groups looking at that to make sure that they won't allow it?
But yet they blow it off.
They just believe what they've been told.
And I believe that the vulnerabilities that exist can easily be sold.
I mean, for example, if you want develop a back door into a program, you can sell that tosomebody.

(57:55):
So why wouldn't we want to know who wrote it?
We would want to know what country wrote it.
Where is it coming from?
You know, if it's being written in Serbia, okay, as an example, if you're a Serbian andyou're an engineer over there and you're writing the program, if you put in a backdoor
that no one else knows about, you could sell that to somebody, and no one would know.

(58:16):
And then they go, well, these are—they're not online.
That has been proven to be false, in that there are other ways to communicate other thanbeing online.
We know that.
And so, you're going to see all this.
I'm telling you, it's going to come out in the next two to three weeks.
In my opinion, you're going to see all the vulnerabilities that exist while we cannot usethese machines.

(58:39):
there cannot be one congressman or one senator, after they see this report that's going tobe coming out that will show the vulnerabilities, can sit there and say, well, we still
want to use them anyway.
If they do, they need to be voted out.
sit there.
Yeah, they shouldn't even be allowed to sit there because we don't have any uh way toverify that they were put there legally in the first place.

(59:00):
So exactly, exactly.
air-gapped, they're not air-gapped in the sense that we're talking about.
mean, okay, there are many countries that think that their systems are air-gapped, but wewere able to destroy.
You've got thumb drives that go in every one of these things.
Right?
So there are many other ways to communicate that have not been revealed yet, but you willfind out probably the next two to three weeks.

(59:25):
And I think it's important that people understand that
When you have a machine between the voter and the final count, you can never be assuredthat your vote was counted.
You can never be assured.
And so this idea that we can, for convenience sake, is ridiculous.
And we must reject that.
And any Secretary of State who says, you've got to do that, we're not going to go, we'renot going to do hand counts, then you need to quit.

(59:49):
You need to resign.
Because we did it for 200 years.
I think we can do it again.
And that's just the cold, hard facts of this matter.
um And so, yeah.
when what you say is coming out, when it comes out in the next two or three weeks, andevery election official, every secretary of state in the country and everybody who is

(01:00:14):
playing in this field sees this, if they continue to push for this, would that, does thatrise to the level of malfeasance in office?
Yeah, because they're going to be given, um not only the evidence, they're going to begiven a direct, I believe, direct um order that you can't use these machines in federal

(01:00:35):
elections for sure.
Now what?
You're going run two parallel elections?
You're going to use machines that have been proven to be untrustworthy?
Are you going to do that?
assuming, assuming, uh Colonel Reynolds, that we have not actually invested this $150million in these machines, uh when this order comes out, when this information comes out,

(01:00:58):
at that point, Nancy Landry, I don't think she has plausible deniability even at thispoint, because of what people like you and so many others have been saying, but clearly
she would have no plausible deniability at that
point to go forward with this investment.
That's correct.
And it's a misuse of taxpayer money.

(01:01:19):
100 % misuse of taxpayer money.
Let there be no doubt here.
We have a national emergency.
That's what this is.
And we are encouraging the president to declare a national emergency right now on thisissue.
Because if we don't get this right, I'm telling you, the midterms are not going to begood.
And we need to fix it right now.

(01:01:40):
I mean, we only have a few weeks.
We don't have months.
We don't have years.
We have weeks, maybe a few weeks.
that we have in order to get this done, because states have to prepare to be able to havea primary.
Probably, know, the earliest primaries are, I think, the 3rd of March when they firststart out and people already vote starting in February.
We need to fix this now.

(01:02:01):
And so I think that um the national emergency that I just talked about, I think thatyou're going to hear more about here very shortly.
You said, uh Colonel, that there's a real concern about Venezuelan foreign interference inour elections.
I think you said something recently about it, and I think you discussed it uh recently.

(01:02:25):
uh Considering that, and also Tulsi Gabbard's uh statement recently that there has beenforeign interference in our elections,
and that these electronic voting systems are highly manipulable.
How does that tie to Venezuela?
Who specifically is doing the manipulation in these electronic voting systems?

(01:02:51):
Right.
Well, the key about Venezuela, and again, you're going to read about it, read the book,Stonewall Elections, you'll see how all of that got started.
You'll understand how that plays into our current election system.
Again, you develop the prototype, you develop the DNA, the type of coding that is requiredin order to be able to manipulate machines.

(01:03:16):
That is the genesis of it.
That's where it started and it moved on to other companies.
And that is what you're going to see.
Venezuela is important because it is the one country that actually used it and started itand developed it.
And then it branched out and it went to other companies.
It went from Smartmatic to Sequoia to Dominion and then to ES &S.

(01:03:40):
And all of these companies, again, tend to use what appears to be the very same type ofmanipulatable coding.
that can be altered, that can be changed.
One of the ways you can get around this, by the way, is if you have a hand-marked paperballot that a person actually marks.

(01:04:01):
We know that 99 % of voter intent is captured on a hand-marked paper ballot.
Maybe 1 % makes a mistake, but most people recognize if they've made a mistake on a paperballot.
If you hand-count it, then you're going to be able
to determine, in other words, we know that's the best way.

(01:04:23):
That's the way to do it.
And so a hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballot is the gold standard.
It has to be done in every state.
I guess that's pretty much where...
And Venezuela and all the machine companies, uh they've built their model uh on thiscoding that was designed back in, initially designed in Venezuela.

(01:04:45):
And it's kind of like a cancer.
It's gone to all three of them.
There's a lot more here to it.
could spend hours explaining all of this to you, but I will just tell you, have hope.
Your viewers need to have hope.
I think it's going to come out without question so that everybody is on the same sheet ofmusic.
You can't really argue the facts that will be presented.

(01:05:08):
then people like your secretary of state, she will be a fool to buy machines after thiscomes out.
And she should be prohibited.
mean, every state legislature should be saying, no way are you going to spend our taxpayermoney now that we already know what we know.
Yeah.
And Colonel, the recent actions by the Department of War off the coast ah againstVenezuela, do you think those have anything to do with elections or do you think they are

(01:05:38):
actually specifically targeting fentanyl traffickers, drug traffickers?
I think the two things could be true.
I think that the drug trafficking is very important.
That particular country has gone to a narco terrorist type government uh who have capturedthat government, the legitimate government.

(01:05:58):
And I think that a calculated decision is being made as we speak on what to do withVenezuela.
But it is a narco regime, make no mistake.
And we know that.
And I think that's why the harsh actions are coming out right now.
I don't know what the future plans are going to be for Venezuela, but if I were a bettingman, I would say that things are going to change in Venezuela for the good for the people

(01:06:23):
of Venezuela here very shortly.
I hope so.
I don't know how much more time we have, but I would like to talk a little bit about, ifwe've got a second here, about Heritage Foundation.
Because I think that this is something that really bothers me because
I like the Heritage Foundation.
I think they've done some great things and I think that they are a conservativeorganization.

(01:06:47):
They've proven their value over the years.
But one area that I don't have a lot of confidence in is their scorecard.
The scorecard that they give for election integrity.
And people say election security, it's not security at all.
They're not looking at the secure nature of any of these machines.
What they're looking at is each state and the laws that each states have.

(01:07:10):
in order to conduct elections.
That's what they're looking at.
And it started in 2021.
That was the first scorecard that came out.
And it's done by Hans von Spaskowski is his name.
I'll just call him Hans.
He's a long time election guy, been around many, many, many years.

(01:07:31):
He came up with the scorecard.
But the problem I have with it is that the very first year, the very
state that got number one out of 50 states, number one, you know which state that was?
Georgia.
Georgia.
Oh, excellent.
They got number one.
Out of all the problems we saw with Georgia, they got number one.

(01:07:53):
And your state has always been in the top 10 with all the problems you have with DREs.
Crazy.
It makes no sense.
But yet in our state, we've been putting a lot of pressure on our state legislature andour governor.
And guess who's number one this year?
Arkansas.
And then they made a big deal out of it.

(01:08:14):
They came on TV.
said we're number one, election integrity, election insecurity, trying to thwart oureffort to get paper ballots here.
And it appears...
you do a comprehensive evaluation of the security of a voting system that is anelectronic-based voting system when you don't even have an IT expert on your staff?

(01:08:46):
I heard last night that Heritage Foundation right now is trying to find an IT expert.
How do you rank a voting system in a state that is centered on electronic systems whenyou've done no evaluation of that electronic system and you don't even have an IT
personnel on your staff?

(01:09:07):
And I'll piggyback on that and say, they're looking at laws on the books, but how many ofour states completely ignore the laws that are on the books?
So they mean nothing.
Well, I agree.
And if you look at it, they base everything on a 40 pay or 40 questionnaires or 40questions.
That's basically what it is.

(01:09:28):
And, you know, do you do this?
Do you have a, do you require ID?
They don't ask you, do you acquire government ID?
Like in Arkansas here, you have to have an ID.
Okay.
But guess what?
It can be a university ID going to a college year.
You can be a foreign student going in and have an ID, but that that's what they have.
Okay.
And just, it serves a purpose, but not the purpose that they are claiming.

(01:09:56):
And it basically, appears to me it gives cover.
It gets covered to the states that are having pushback and they want to keep the machinesthere.
That is a, and that's a problem.
Okay.
Cause as soon as I come out and say something, they go, we're number one on the heritage,most conservative think group in Washington, DC.
And we are perfect.
They said we're great.
So then you have to argue that from another side instead of saying, no, no, no, no, no.

(01:10:19):
And then I have to explain, there's 40 questions and here they are.
this is what people, they tune out, they hear the sound bite.
We're the number one out of all 50 states.
So it is a way to give cover, I believe.
And so we're going to try to address that at some point soon.
But we, learned early on and I told president Trump that we've decided we cannot pushstrings from the bottom.

(01:10:44):
We have to pull them from the top.
It has to come from the presidential level.
And if we don't get it done now with President Trump there and the other people in hiscabinet, whether it's DHS or DOJ or uh ODNI, we're never going to get it done.
So we think that this is the window of opportunity and maximum pressure has to come out onall of these governors and these secretaries of states to get rid of the machines.

(01:11:07):
And that's what we plan on doing.
You've already answered the question, Colonel, about what we could expect coming out inthe next two or three weeks.
I was going to ask you about that, but that's very, very comforting to know that we shouldbe getting something in the next two or three weeks on this in the form of an EO.
Also looking forward to reading your book on this.
ah

(01:11:28):
It's great.
It's a great book.
I'm telling you, it'll knock your socks off, but anyway, it'll come out later.
Well, you have to just be in touch with us and we'll have you back on to preview the bookwhen you're ready to publish.
I would love to.
would love to.
Yes, sir.
have any idea, Colonel Reynolds, if one of the questions on the Heritage Survey form iswhether or not your state requires proof of citizenship when an individual is applying to

(01:11:55):
register to vote?
I do not think so.
I have to go back and look at it, but I don't think so.
There's no uh requirement for that.
In fact, the executive order that President Trump put out in March of this year uh askedthe form to be changed to have, you're a U.S.
citizen.
And they got pushed back from the EAC and it was sued.

(01:12:16):
They were sued.
And that's still in court right now.
They've been enjoined by uh several organizations that sued saying you can't do that.
uh It has to be done.
And I think that will get done.
That's my personal opinion.
there's a law on the books right now in Louisiana that was passed in 2024, and it's beeneffective in Louisiana since January of this year to require any person who's trying to

(01:12:42):
vote or applying to register to vote to provide some proof that they are an Americancitizen.
It is current law in Louisiana, and it's a law that our Secretary of State, by her ownadmission, is not enforcing here.
ah And so is there a federal statutory issue as to why she would not be able to enforcethat here?

(01:13:10):
don't know.
I'm not an attorney.
So I would not want to try to answer that.
But I think that you're going to find the citizenship requirement, I think, is going to beupheld.
And I think that's what's going to happen nationwide.
Only U.S.
citizens are supposed to be voting.
And we know that in many of these other states, they're simply not U.S.

(01:13:30):
citizens that have voted.
They've registered and there's no way to kick them off the voter rolls.
And so the voter rolls are another issue.
But the one that we're focused on right now are the eight things that I just mentionedbefore.
I think it's very important.
If we get that, we're 99 % there on having safe and secure elections.
And I'm going to tell you something else, that if we get this in now, which was what we'retrying to do, and we've tried to impress upon the administration, that it's important that

(01:13:59):
we do this before, before primary start, because that way we can get rid of all of theserhinos.
that are simply not listening to the people.
You can get rid of them.
Now they're on a level playing field.
They can't rely upon some type of manipulation to keep them in.
And so that's why we were really forcing it and trying to push it.

(01:14:21):
know, pray for us, pray for us that we're successful because it's our country, our countryhas to have it.
Yeah.
uh
Colonel, that we want to ask you.
This really will be the last one, okay?
This really will be the last one.
But I got to ask you, do you care to speculate?
And I know perhaps you don't have absolute proof of this.

(01:14:44):
How many elected officials in our country, state level, national level, do you think maybe there who were not legitimately elected, but were selected?
have no idea.
And that's the problem.
We have no idea.
And you'll never know.
You'll never know.
You'll never know who was selected, who wasn't.

(01:15:05):
won't.
We know that, we do know that most of your primaries are the ones that are beingmanipulated in solid red states and solid blue states.
That's where the manipulation comes in.
Here in Arkansas, I think last year was the first year they quote, did an audit of theprimary.
They've never done an audit of the primary until we brought it up and started making anissue out of it.

(01:15:27):
But what they do is in our general election, they'll take one race, usually thepresidential or the governor's race.
And that is what then they'll look at eight to 20 counties and they'll go in and it's aspot check.
It's like going into a bank and getting one teller drawer and looking at the $1 bills andcounting them and say, they're all here.
We're all good.
That's what it's equivalent to.

(01:15:48):
It's ridiculous.
and they know, for example, in Arkansas, the presidential election wasn't going to bemanipulated.
Trump was going to win, he won 65 % or so.
knew that that was never, and Sarah Huckabee's race would never be manipulated.
They never look at any of the other races.
They never look at any of the primaries.
And so what I've also noticed was a trend by the parties, particularly in our state, theRepublican party, to ensure that there's no primary, there's nobody running against an

(01:16:18):
incumbent.
They do everything they can to make sure, or their preferred person, that they won't.
They make sure other people drop out for some reason.
They drop out at the last minute or they do, they run for another office.
That is what we've seen.
So it's very clear to me what's going on.
um And the way to defeat it just go to paper ballots and just hand mark paper ballots Andthen it's a level playing field.

(01:16:41):
And then you know for sure.
And so, um and I think that anybody else will tell you that the other thing I want you toknow, and I'll show throw this out there is that we did a poll in Arkansas in October,
2023.
that showed that 63 % of all Arkansans want paper ballots.
They don't trust machines.
63%.
It was 73 % of all Republicans that wanted it, right?

(01:17:06):
And then they did a nationwide...
Brass Mucin did a nationwide poll a few months ago, which had the same statistics.
How do I know those statistics are true?
Well, last November, Independence County, the second county in Arkansas that wanted to goto paper ballots, they were actually able...
to get a petition, people signed, to get it on the ballot to be able to vote on it.

(01:17:27):
They were the first county in America that we know of that actually voted on whether theywant to use machines or they wanted to use a paper ballot.
It passed.
They wanted paper ballots.
You what the percentage was?
63%.
63 % of those people.
So we know that those polls were accurate because we saw it.
63 % of the people there wanted to do it.

(01:17:49):
Brian Norris, he's running for Secretary of State here in Arkansas.
Brian Norris was the one that led that effort in Independence County to get all thesignatures in that county to get it on the ballot.
And he was fought tooth and nail, tooth and nail by the state, the county attorney, by theRepublican party.
And he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, state of Arkansas, to get it on theballot.

(01:18:12):
That is the kind of pushback that we're getting.
That's what we're up against.
And we're in a solid red state.
So I think the president understands exactly what's going on.
And I think it's important for everybody to know that.
Yeah.
Well, Colonel Reynolds, where can people follow you and where can they learn more aboutyour paper ballot initiative?

(01:18:33):
Go to avii.org, avii.org.
And you can go in there and we have a lot of great reading material and everything thatI've learned over the last three years and I've studied, has been read, everything I can.
I've learned that all of this has been out there for years, for decades, but nobody wantsto listen to it because it's not convenient and it's not popular.

(01:19:00):
It's not convenient.
And that is the problem that we have right now.
So you can also go to at Colonel Reynolds on X.
You know, I'm there.
And so you can, you can find me on X if you want to at Colonel Reynolds.
Awesome, thank you.
of the most amazing, oh one of the most refreshing things and uplifting things to me aboutthis conversation today is that I'll walk away from this with no doubt at this point that

(01:19:26):
the Trump administration is fully aware of what's going on here because you and othershave communicated it to them.
I've had this lingering suspicion in the back of my mind that maybe President Trump andsome of this
officials close to him are not fully aware of the magnitude of the issue or even thespecific details of the issue here.

(01:19:51):
But I'm reassured based on this interview with you that they are in fact aware fully ofwhat's going on here.
And that gives me a lot of heart and a lot of consolation.
They're aware and the president is on the same sheet of music that we are.
Absolutely have no doubt about that.
So,
part because of you, I'm sure.

(01:20:11):
So God bless you for joining us today, Colonel.
Keep up this good fight.
You got a lot of people, a lot of people following you and inspired by you, including usright here in Louisiana at the State of Freedom.
So many thanks to you, sir.
And I want to leave, make sure you vote.

(01:20:31):
One way you know for sure your vote doesn't count is if you don't go vote.
So I don't want to discourage anybody from not voting.
I want you to vote.
That's why I served 30 years on active duty, another 15 years as a contractor for the USgovernment to fight for our country, for your right to be able to have a say in this
country.
And the only way you get that is through a vote.

(01:20:51):
Okay.
That's why we're fighting for it.
Amen.
God bless you, Colonel.
We'll be talking to you soon.
Take care.
Bye bye.
Thank you.
Let me tell you something, Danielle.
Hold on, Chris.
Don't forget about our ad.
I'm not.
just have to tell you, we're going to the ad, but I have to tell you this first.
That was the clearest explanation of what is really going on here that I think we've everheard.

(01:21:18):
Dr.
Smith, she communicated well, but it was very, very technical.
And I thought that this was a little bit simpler explanation that the Colonel gave us thatreally helps me and I know a lot of others to understand really.
what's going on here in these machines.
So we'll talk more when we get back.
I know we have uh our affiliate sponsors, uh a word from them, but don't go anywherebecause we're going to debrief a little bit when we get back.

(01:21:45):
All right, perfect.

(01:22:28):
Alright.
Well, I really enjoyed talking to the Colonel.
had not, uh, it's, it's a pi- it's almost surprising that we haven't had a mom before.
I know, uh what a jewel, what a treasure he is.
ah it's just, uh it's extraordinary to me how what appears so clear and so obvious toeverybody, uh except the institutional bureaucrats and the politicians and these machine

(01:23:00):
vendors.
Yeah, absolutely.
I appreciate the level of thorn in the side he has committed to being to the politiciansin the state of Arkansas.
And I think, I think we're committed to the same level of, uh of being, you know, a great,great irritant to them until they bend to the will of the people.

(01:23:25):
Yes, and I have never, I've been an irritant at many points in my life to many people, butI have never derived quite this degree of satisfaction from being an irritant as I am on
this issue because it's so very, very important, Danielle.
And as you've said so many times, if we don't get this right, and as the Colonel saidtoday, if we don't get this right, then we...

(01:23:51):
We really don't have a republic because we will not have the capacity to elect the peoplewho truly serve us.
And that's why this is so important.
And I have to say this one more time.
I am so, so gratified by what Colonel Reynolds said about what is going to be forthcomingfrom the Trump administration on this issue.

(01:24:13):
And hopefully it will be very clear and clarify exactly what's going on here.
I mean, he suggested
that what's coming out if Nancy Landry goes forward after that and invests $150 million invoting machines, that really it's malfeasance in office for her to do that because at that

(01:24:33):
point she's got zero plausible deniability, none.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Although, like you said, she should have none now if she, if she, you know, if she is notcompletely stone deaf, because the voice of the people has been screeching about this
issue since before she even took office, right?

(01:24:54):
When she sat in that and when she sat in the secretary of state's office, not as theelected secretary of state or selected secretary of state, however you might want to view
it.
Uh, but
She's known that we the people are unhappy with the state of our elections.
She's known that we don't trust the machines.

(01:25:16):
And there's only excuses for that.
A couple things I want to mention, Chris, two to three weeks from now, let's just say bythe end of the first week, the first full week of October, that would be two to three
weeks from now we could on the far side.
So I pray that that's the case.
The other thing I wanted to mention is

(01:25:37):
Could you just bring out, know, Colonel Reynolds was talking about the statistics ofpeople who wanted paper ballots versus machines.
Wasn't Secretary of State Nancy Landry uh talking about some statistics that didn't haveany backup to them at a recent meeting you were at?
I'd love for you to bring that out.

(01:25:58):
I didn't have a chance to bring it up during the show, but it definitely popped into myhead.
So Nancy Landry is going around touting her poll or whatever that was done that shows that90 or 91 % of Louisiana citizens don't want to go to secure paper ballots and then want to
continue voting on machines.
So at a recent meeting, Christy Huyck and I and others questioned her on that and veryrespectfully,

(01:26:22):
Secretary Landry, could we get access to this poll who conducted it?
I mean, could we look at the poll and see the demographics?
was polled?
Whatever we'd like to see it.
Ninety one percent.
Wow, that's pretty high.
Well, her response was, well, we just saw the poll.
We don't have the poll.
We just looked at the poll.
ah And so nobody knows where this poll is.

(01:26:44):
Nobody knows who conducted this poll.
and nobody can have access to it to look and see what type of poll it was, whether it wasskewed based on the demographic that was polled, whatever.
So yet she's going around saying that 91 % of citizens in Louisiana want machine-basedvoting.
I think it's despicable.
There is no poll.

(01:27:04):
Of course there's no poll.
I certainly wasn't reached out to to give my opinion in that poll.
Were you?
You would have been among the quote 9 % who didn't want it.
Yeah, it's just an absolute joke.
And the last thing I'll say, Danielle, is this.

(01:27:26):
I know that Nancy Landry is doing everything within her power to come across as thisstoic, staid, perfectly...
satisfied, you know, public official who knows what she's doing, confident, for it.
I guarantee you that's not the case.
I guarantee you that she is feeling the heat.

(01:27:48):
She's not going to tell people that she's feeling the heat.
People who are close to her are not going to tell people that she's feeling the heat, butshe's feeling the heat.
And I can promise you she is.
And it's because of people like Colonel Reynolds, people like the state, us here on thestate of freedom and people everywhere who are continuing
to beat the drum on this issue.

(01:28:09):
And I would encourage everyone to continue doing so.
And Chris, they can do that by going to lacag.org and uh you have some calls to action up,right?
On opposing the voting machines.
Yes.
And that reminds me, Danielle, that not only do we have hundreds, maybe even thousands atthis point, of direct communications to the governor and the secretary of state on secure

(01:28:34):
hand-marked paper ballots, and we the people Bayou community, your group, has well over3,000 handwritten letters that have signed letters that have gone to the secretary of
state on this issue.
3,000.
And yet, she...
you know how many have been responded to or acknowledged receipt of?

(01:28:56):
That's correct.
Big fat zero, which to me is extremely disappointing.
um I'm simply hoping that at some point, because of the 3,000 letters, because of all theemails that have gone from Lecague, and because of what Colonel Reynolds is saying is

(01:29:16):
coming out in the form of an executive order, I view that as the functional equivalent
of a megaphone that if you turn the decibel level up high enough, you can actually makeNancy Landry hear it even down in, you know, under the two or three feet hole of sand in

(01:29:39):
which she has her head buried that maybe she'll be able to hear it down in there.
ah And I think if it's a loud enough megaphone, she'll be able to hear it because rightnow she's determined
not to hear anything that is inconsistent with her narrative, which is terrible for thisstate.

(01:29:59):
Yeah.
is.
And like we said before the show, Chris, the way you know that your elected officials arenot working for you is the fact that they are not listening to you.
they are absolutely not listening.
It doesn't mean they're not hearing.
It doesn't mean they're not hearing.
They're just not listening.
But as we continue forward with the state of freedom, Danielle, we're going to continue tobeat the drum on this issue.

(01:30:23):
know in your view and in my view at this point, it is the single most important issue weface in our state.
We're going to continue moving forward and the state of freedom is determined to continueto expand our voice so that
Every citizen in the state of Louisiana knows about the state of freedom and can listen toour podcasts and be informed about what really is going on.

(01:30:48):
don't believe you're going to get, for instance, I don't believe you're going to get whatwe got today on any other podcasts in the state.
You're just not going to get the truth like this anywhere else and not just on this issue,but on many, many other issues.
So I can't emphasize enough.
Please subscribe.
Please share, please donate to the state of freedom and please advertise on the state offreedom.

(01:31:13):
Because I can assure you if Danielle and I believe in something, whether it's yourproduct, whether it's your vision, your idea, nobody will be able to sell it, promote it
if we believe in it better than this show right here.
So give us a shot.
Our rates are very reasonable.
Give us a shot to advertise for you.

(01:31:34):
and we think you're going to be pleased with the results.
That's right.
And also support the work of LeCag.
I know that ah your fearless partner, Katie, is already at the Dominion votingdemonstration and along with many other patriots from across the state.
hope that they are uh being uh maybe vocal in their displeasure.

(01:32:00):
I hope that the Secretary of State is there and witnessing some great displeasure from
you know, we the serfs, the villagers, the peasants, ah as she probably views us.
Right, the peasants.
Look, I've never been so honored.
I've never been so honored to be called a peasant.

(01:32:24):
I mean, that means we're on the right side speaking the truth, right?
Yeah.
are speaking the truth.
And just a couple of announcements before we go, Chris.
I know you are heading off to the Dominion demonstration after we get off of this.
So thank you for going and representing us there alongside Katie and many others.

(01:32:45):
Tomorrow, a reminder, we will be back or I will be back at least at 10 a.m.
Central on For the Love of Freedom.
I'll be joined.
by some dear friends, Stephen and Candace Crothers.
are missionaries to a remote village in Honduras.
We'll be talking about how they have followed God to the ends of the earth.
And then Thursday, Chris, you'll be back here with me.

(01:33:05):
We will be joined by Dr.
Mary Talley-Boden to talk about the Maha Agendas progress and will we ever seeaccountability for COVID.
So great stuff coming up this week.
We hope to see you back here.
Same time, same place.
God bless you.
Keep marching forward to victory, Danielle.
And as you always say, we are not proceeding toward victory.

(01:33:28):
We are proceeding from a victory, ultimately, that has already been won for us.
And as long as we are faithful instruments, we will consummate all of our efforts in apowerful, powerful, long-standing victory that is going to affect not only us now, but the
next generation.
That ultimately is what it's all about, what we leave to our kids and our grandkids.

(01:33:53):
And it makes this fight so very worth it.
So God bless you, Danielle.
Love you.
And we will reconvene soon.
And in vain, we shall go.
You too.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#333 Election Integrity Will Save Our Republic w/ Col. Conrad Reynolds (Ret. USA)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

#333 Election Integrity Will Save Our Republic w/ Col. Conrad Reynolds (Ret. USA)

Stuff You Should Know