298- Art Battles the Smithsonian & more... featuring Julian Raven

Julian Raven shares his extraordinary journey from British-born artist to American legal activist, fighting an eight-year battle against the Smithsonian Institution after his Trump portrait was rejected for exhibition. Through persistence and legal research, he uncovered the true nature of the Smithsonian as a private charitable trust rather than a federal agency, exposing institutional bias and constitutional questions about who controls America's cultural institutions.

• British-born, Spanish-raised artist who came to America as a missionary before finding his calling as a painter
• Created a prophetic 7x15 foot portrait of Trump in 2015 when most dismissed his presidential chances
• Traveled across America with his painting, eventually becoming an alternate New York delegate at the RNC
• Faced blatant partisan rejection from Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery director Kim Sayet
• Discovered the Smithsonian is legally a private charitable trust, not a federal agency
• Self-filed multiple lawsuits and Supreme Court petitions without legal representation
• Documented the Smithsonian director's anti-Trump activism while in official position
• Recent developments with Trump attempting to fire Sayet reveal the constitutional questions at stake
• Case now involves potential action from DC Attorney General to defend the Smithsonian Trust
• Encourages Americans to get involved in civic action rather than just complaining about problems

Julian's book "Odious and Cerberus: An American Immigrant's Odyssey and His Free Speech Legal War Against Smithsonian Corruption" details his journey and legal battle. Learn more at smithsoninstitution.com and see Julian's artwork at julianraven.com.

Follow Julian at ...

https://smithsoninstitution.com/

For Balance Sources

1440

Ground News

New Paper

All Sides

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Julian Raven
• 3:40 Journey from England to America
• 8:10 Painting Trump and American Politics
• 14:00 Smithsonian Rejection and Initial Lawsuit
• 25:50 The Legal Status of Smithsonian Institution
• 35:10 Trump's Firing of Kim Sayet
• 50:50 Attorney General's Duty to Smithsonian Trust
• 1:06:05 Civic Duty and Legal Activism
• 1:15:25 Playing the Long Game for Justice
• 1:24:40 Final Thoughts and Inspiration

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:12

Welcome everyone to Politically I-Tech with your host, elias. I have an interesting new guest. I think interesting, it's a little watered down. I have an interesting new guest. I think interesting, it's a little watered down. I have an exciting guest. All right, this is.

Speaker 1: 0:31

You know, rarely this podcast deals with current events in real time. I'm just going to concise like this British born, spanish raised, but despite all that, american made Because he is very, it is very American. Okay to do these battles, and I'm going to criticize some of the more modern contemporary Americans. We lose that flavor to fight for what's actually important we care about. I'm just going to say this pornography and reality TV show more than issues that could impact us greatly. That's junk. All right, that is junk compared to what's going on.

Speaker 1: 1:10

You know the 1A continues to deteriorate. People don't care unless it affects them personally. Ideally, I wish they could be more aware sooner, but it has to affect people personally. That's why I learned for them to get wild up. They actually might want to do some about it. And then the better question is can they? Can they sustain that fighting spirit? It's nice, they want to start, but can they sustain it? That's what makes the true warriors. So, despite all that, I'm going to cut you know I could do these for five minutes, but I'm just going to cut it straight because I want to get to know Julian Raven here. Yes, he's a newcomer, but he's a very exciting newcomer. Okay, and to start this off like what I normally do, what do you want the viewers and listeners to know about?

Speaker 2: 1:55

Well, firstly, good morning, elias, and thank you for having me on. It's a privilege and a pleasure always to share my story, my journey. I love the American made tag that you came up with there. That's awesome because it's true. America is really, for me, the place where dreams and destinies unfold. It really is, and it's all to do with the wonderful freedoms that we enjoy in this country that allow those things to take place. I heartily agree and accept that. Those things to take place. I hardly agree and accept that, monica. That's awesome. So, thank you, and my little journey starts London, england.

Speaker 2: 2:30

I was born in a place called Richmond upon Thames. My family, when I was not even two, nearly two, years old, moved to southern Spain. They had vacation to Portugal and driven down the coast of Spain and all the way to Portugal and passed through this town called Marbella, which is a beautiful coastal, used to be a little fishing port back then in the 70s, early 70s, and Marbella was really untouched, very pristine, just beautifully. Spanish culture, history. The people are fabulous, fantastic, fantastic people, wonderful cuisine, great wine and just a wonderful place to live. And so they drove by this place and that's where they decided to move to eventually. My father was an entrepreneur and at that time the fax machine had just been invented and he was like I wonder if I can run my business from the golf course in Spain and drink gin and tonics and then have his faxes going back and forth to London. And he did, and that's what he did. So that's a little bit of where I come from. It's a beautiful coastal town in Marbella, spain. I have a whole journey in growing up there, my whole spiritual journey from an atheist to becoming a follower of Jesus. That's a whole other chapter of my life. But that was really the genesis behind me leaving Marbella and pursuing my destiny.

Speaker 2: 3:50

I actually came to the United States as a missionary to go to South America. Since I'm fluent in Spanish, I've always had an affinity and affection for the Latin continents and Latin people. I was like, well, if I'm fluent in Spanish, I want to go and share the gospel and live my life out in Mexico and go south, and that was my plan. But as the old saying goes, you know, if you want to make God laugh, you tell him your plans and he had other plans. So he re-steered my ship and I ended up in New York and different places. I've been in a town, beautiful river town on the Hudson, called Nyack, which is about 19 miles North of New York city, and now I am in an upstate town called Elmira, which is about 200 miles North, very, very, very different. This is the town where Mark Twain is buried. This is his hometown. He wasn't born here, but this is the Mark Twain dwelling, but it's a ghost town. Now this upstate New York is like there's no one around. There's absolutely no one, but it's very affordable for an artist, which I am. I have a beautiful art studio here which is very affordable, huge it's like a warehouse and I paint large format paintings and that brought me to this whole political journey where I paint this now historic, prescient portrait of Trump.

Speaker 2: 5:07

Before anybody was serious or could even take this individual seriously as a New Yorker in 2014, trump had. We might get some relief from the madness of the political climate in New York state. You know businesses are more businesses leave than come to New York and it's a it's a state that is always draining. This guy was a business guy and with name recognition and was. He was showing interest and he was going on these sort of exploratory campaigns and people we knew and like, wow, this is great and he's on a local radio show, locally here. So we were excited. And then that fizzled. He couldn't get the support of the Republican Party at that time. It was like, well, that was a little bit of opportunity that we lost.

Speaker 2: 5:52

And then in 2015, june of 2015, there was that iconic moment of him coming down the staircase and I saw that happen live and I was like, wow, that's really interesting. And that was where I my destiny sort of tag team with this whole development in American history, where my little life became a part of the story. Painting that time in June, I began in July of 2015 to paint this prophetic image of Trump that I was inspired to paint. It's a remarkable story of the process, of how I came to this conclusion. I spent two months tucked away in the studio where I am now secretly painting this massive it's seven feet by 15 feet a painting of Trump as president, and when I finally unveiled it, most people I knew in Christian circles, et cetera they were like I'd have to hold my nose to vote for this guy. Nobody, nobody. It was a joke. They thought I was mad. They thought you're stupid, what are you doing? And then I went on a campaign with it and I traveled the country.

Speaker 2: 6:55

I went on this American political pilgrimage, which was remarkable for a foreigner like me to go and experience the American political war. It was. It was remarkable. I ended up as an alternate New York delegate for New York State at the RNC. My work was seen across the country. It was a remarkable journey of just coming to this country already in love with America, but then seeing the political machine up close and personal was fascinating, educational, transformational. My life was changed. It was an adventure. It was met. Educational, transformational. My life was changed. It was an adventure. It was met wonderful people, but it was also getting face-to-face with the ugliness of politics and what it really is, and so you sort of have a real sobering up like, oh my goodness, you see money and power right at the very pinnacle. As a New Yorker, this is what was amazing.

Speaker 2: 7:42

New York State at the RNC in 2016 was the main state because it was the state Trump was the candidate from. They were placed right at the center front of the entire Republican National Convention going on and I was an alternate delegate so I would be called from the audience. Basically, they sat us off to the right like a spare tire, the audience basically, where they sat us off to the right like a spare tire and they'd call us down when the main delegates wanted. You know they'd go for a coffee or whatever. It was Everyone. Someone had to be sitting there at all times.

Speaker 2: 8:12

So I would go down and I was sitting on the front row of the New York delegation at the Republican National Convention, at the RNC, and right in front of me was the wall and the pulpit. I mean that's how close I was and so that's how upfront and close on this journey I was. I wrote it in my book which is called Odious and Cerberus an American Immigrant's Odyssey and His Free Speech Legal War Against Smithsonian Corruption. I'll just show yourself and your audience just so you can see my book there. I wrote my book that really talks about the journey coming to where I am today, which is in this eight year, going on nine years now legal battle against the Smithsonian Institution. That continues to today.

Speaker 1: 8:58

Listeners or viewers pay attention here. This is just barely scratching the surface. Okay, I would say, out of a lot of long introductions, it's definitely one of the top because I was hooked throughout the whole thing. Normally I'm able to multitask means I am paying attention, but I'm kind of juggling. Yes, I'm exposing myself here. The reason why I'm saying this because this is a very I love short introductions, but the problem is sometimes they miss some of the gravitas, if you mean, you know, or hook. But this one is just, I was interested and then you know, if we could have talked for an hour straight, I probably would not interrupt.

Speaker 2: 9:36

There's a lot there. There's the story is it's, you know, it's my, it's my life, it's impacted and changed my life and so it's fascinating. And it's fascinating in the sense of the depth of it because, as someone who has, since a child, always been fascinated, curious about how things work, I can remember as a little boy always taking things apart and dismantling stuff and trying to fathom out how things were put together and what made them tick. That's my experience in America. So I came to this country. I stayed like I said, it wasn't my plan, I was going to South America.

Speaker 2: 10:11

I had prejudices against the United States because in Europe you're sort of grown up, you're brought up in this very anti-American sentiment which is you're a kid, you don't know any different, it's just sort of what you're being bombarded with. So you have these sort of ideas. But the interesting thing was that as I met Americans in Europe, whether they came to the schools I attended, whether they attended the bars that I ran I owned a string of hard rock bars in Marbella, spain the Americans that I met growing up from the art teacher who was my mentor, amazing guy every American that I met were larger than life, people with big hearts, they were generous, they were curious, they were educated, they were kind hearted people, and this is across the board. This is from the military retired officer who lived across the street from us Because in Spain you have these two military bases, in Cadiz and Madrid and he was a retiree and he used to bring us shredded wheat and he'd go to the commissary at the base and buy all this American stuff I mean generous people and yet my ears were being filled with the propaganda of anti-Americanism. So you have this sort of wrong, very wrong perception. Well, when I came to the US, that all changed America and Americans and the story and I start really reading the story, which I knew nothing about and the Christian history and this remarkable people that have just had such a massive impact in the modern world for good and for bad. That changed your whole perspective. So then, becoming involved politically now I'm looking at the machinery up close and it's amazing and I see myself when I try to encourage my fellow citizens.

Speaker 2: 11:49

I did become a citizen in 2015,. Right when I finished painting the painting for whatever reason, providentially my citizenship appointment turned up. When I go and pledge and I do the whole thing, I feel like many times I'm like nipping at the heels of Americans to say listen, you know, this is my journey, this is my destiny, this is what I have. I didn't look for, this is what I'm on, this is what I've been doing.

Speaker 2: 12:12

But then, and as we sort of touched on before we got started, you know, the American citizen many times sits back and we have the freedoms to do so much, you know, and rather than get frustrated and yell and scream at the TV screen or the radio and people always trust it it's like look, you've got potholes outside, you've got things you could hit. Stop cursing the potholes, get out there and do something about it, fix it, you'll fix it. In other words, we have the freedoms in this country to get up and bang on doors and write letters and make phone calls and write petitions. We can do anything to have an active part in making our society better. And when we just leave it and abdicate that responsibility to the political class, I think that's part of the problem we're in. I don't believe that it was how America was designed. I believe America was designed to have a small, tiny government, but it was the citizenry and our faith, expressed in our communities, that would build the shining city on the hill. That was what I believe.

Speaker 1: 13:09

So just as an encourager there to my fellow Americans who may be listening, you know you touched something very important and I want to emphasize this before I get to the Smithsonian Outsourcing our rights is a bad idea. Being lazy about it is a bad idea. Being lazy about is a bad idea. Take it to someone who used to take this for granted. I am involved personally as grand as his, I'll say that much. But I've been personally involved trying to change New York state vote. We lost to be more inclusive, to independence. Okay, I mean we got a small victory, but we, you know we lost the main battle so far. So I personally attended to the charter committee meeting. I was there and a lot of people talk their propaganda points. Well, the pro open ballot, the anti open ballot, also the anti open ballot crowd was a little more insane. They'll just say how racism and how big money could influence it. But yeah, you want to continue to ostracize millions of independents and that's growing, by the way especially my generation, gen z.

Speaker 1: 14:14

I'm a millennial because we see how bad both these parties are. We don't identify the one. Me, I'm a republican on some issues and some issues I'm still still a Democrat. Climate change I generally agree with Democrats analysis, but some of the solutions is where it could work. But stop with the hypocrisy. Stop relying on social media stars, for example, as you start losing credibility. You know who I'm talking about. I'm not going to say the name, because they already got enough clout more than they deserve, in my personal opinion. And we have to be more active americans. We just not just. You know well, exercise, yeah, that's a whole nother thing. A health issue, that's a whole nother issue. But also getting involved in, you know, productive protests, get involved these political meetings. Uh, I don't get me wrong. I was very disappointed that they decided not to include that in the ballot but at least include something. That thing is going to take care of the voter fatigue that now the New York mayor is going to have the same election cycle as the US president to reduce voter fatigue.

Speaker 1: 15:16

My reaction is I think generally it's a good idea, because a lot of people tend to vote for president. The problem is, I was going to say this real quick. I got to keep in mind here in this, because I don't get it. You really don't get it. If I see the results, if I start seeing the numbers go up, then I'll stop talking about it.

Speaker 1: 15:31

We need to vote more state and local elections, because those laws impact us much more than the president Does. The president impact us, yes, but not as much as state and local laws. They impact real quick, either by next year or sometimes even immediate Okay, depending on how the laws draft. That's all I want to say, because as much as I'm seeing, you know you're going to win some, you're going to lose some. That's part of the battle. You got to play the long game. You got to be strong. I can't go through your emotions of sadness and all that Of sadness and all that. Of course you're human. Go through it, but don't let it be your boss. Treat it as part of the process.

Speaker 2: 16:08

That's all I can say about that yeah, and I I think on the political participation part, where people are, they feel power. This is what I've learned and you know I was a political naive. I knew nothing about. I grew up in spain, I grew up on the beach in marbella, spain beautiful beaches, fishing, idyllic paradise in the sense of nature, culture, but virtually zero political involvement. And a lot of that to do with Spain and this is again the appreciation of the US is that in Spain, part of the reason why is because the political climate is so prohibitive to the citizen. You want to talk about frustration and talk about political frustration. It's like the ability of people in Spain to participate is so far beyond their reach that they sort of forget it. They just go and they've become masters of having a good time, because that's like they say, we're not even going to bother, but they're frustrated continually about it. In that state Back here in the US, it's like well, there is so much more proximity to the solutions if you get involved. You've got to get equipped, you've got to get informed and you've got to get a persuasive voice.

Speaker 2: 17:15

The part of our problem today, eliza, is that the yelling and the screaming and the cursing and this is what I saw on both sides. It's revolting. Our system was designed that we could have, you know, respectful dialogue, passionate dialogue, passionate communication of ideas. Passionately disagree, but respect each other, shake hands and say I'll meet you at the ballot box and we'll see. And if you lose, get better. If you win, be a good steward and be faithful to what you said to do. These are the Christian virtues that undergirded the system, that would maintain the values that people should embrace in order to have a system that functions.

Speaker 2: 17:53

But once we get rid of those values and it becomes a spitting match and hatred and all the sickness that's so there's so much poison right now then we're going to lose the plot and we'll lose the system and everything will just collapse, because it's our values that dictate how we behave ourselves. And then, yeah, as you rightly just said, now you know it's discouraging. For years I've been involved in whatever years I've been through every type of discouragement, depression. Oh my God, this is so sick, this is so disgusting. But what do we do? We just keep. If we don't do it, if we don't get involved, if we don't, then you just leave it to someone else to do and you, then you give up on a freedom and an opportunity that you had. It's amazing how the individual in America has this freedom and opportunity but, again, not everyone takes advantage of it.

Speaker 1: 18:43

That's exactly. That's correct. No argument here. Everybody says that's exactly what it is, and this is why I have to say what I have to say. And I used to be one of those who used to be oh what's the point, who cares? I used to be that person.

Speaker 1: 18:57

But you don't have to getting involved. And even though I don't like certain groups, because I just think some of them are stupid, silly, naive but I'm going to talk about that a much later episode probably bashing one of them, I'm probably going to lose relations with one of them, but I don't care. I got an extra strategy. I got another group I think is better at fighting the fights. I think they matter. Anyways, I got to have a plan B before I'm going to do that. I just don't attack for the sake of attacking. I'm strategic on that front, but anyways, I don't want to talk about me too much.

Speaker 1: 19:28

Let's get to the exciting battle developing story, by the way of Julian Raven's fight with the Smithsonian, and let's start there, and I think I'm going to start it off. I'm not sure it's great, but I think it needs to be mentioned. I think this point is just too important, that, even though the smithsonian, it's a private institution right, however, is getting treated like it's a federal entity with its privileges, don't have to be as transparent. I mean, feel free to correct me, and me personally I always find a big problem and we did talk about the prestigious seal, the smithsonian that once it gets that seal of approval, vast majority of americans if I'm going to throw a percentage there, feel free to correct me on the on the comment section, love to correct me. Anyways, that's what have you enjoy?

Speaker 1: 20:14

Probably, I would say 90 won't challenge it. That's probably a little conservative. Probably be a little higher, a little lower, but the main point is most people's not going to challenge it the vast majority. I'm not going to give 60 something that means there's a little room for challenge there. No, probably like a 90, that only. But the main point is most people are not going to challenge it the vast majority. I'm not going to give 60-something that means there's a little room for challenge there. No, I'm probably going to give like a 90, that only few will be daring. I mean, you're part of that 10% right there, julie, as really the challenge. Yeah well, go ahead and talk about your idea.

Speaker 2: 20:39

That's a really important point because the Smithsonian Institution is America's premier storytelling engine and over the years the prestige has grown to where it holds a pseudo-religious component in the human heart. That America I compare it sort of like with the United Kingdom and the royal family or, in Spain, the Catholic Church, and obviously they've lost influence over the years, but they used to be held with such high esteem that the infallibility aspect of it was always part of their gig. You know, this is what we do, this is what we say, this is the law and that's it standing in the mind and heart of the American people because rightly so as an institution. Originally according to the bequest of the donor, who was a British man like myself, james Smithson, from 1829, he gave his fortune to the United States to build an institution at Washington DC for the increase and diffusion of knowledge. And so his will basically that's all it stated he wanted an institution with his name on it Smithsonian that's who he is in Washington DC for the increase and diffusion of knowledge. In other words, he's saying I'll give you all my money but you build me a big educational institution he was a scientist and stick my name on it and I'll be happy because when I die, everyone's going to remember me, which is what's happened. But what's happened over the years, as that yes amazing institution of learning and history and science, its original idea was built around science. Joseph Henry, who was the first Smithsonian secretary in 1846, all the way for 37 years of his life, a devoted Christian man with wonderful ideas and a wonderful inventor, he gave his life to that institution and got that thing and built that made it what it was.

Speaker 2: 22:34

That then, over the years it grew and then it deformed and it morphed and it changed because the Smithsonian, as you rightly said, is and was a private charity. That's all it is. It's a charitable trust that is under the care of the federal government. It was never meant to use government money. It was never meant to function with taxpayer dollars. It was functioning by design from the beginning. With the fortune that James Smithson sent, it was 111 sacks of gold sovereigns that were brought over from the United Kingdom. That was the equivalent of about $541,000 in 1836. When they received it, it took them 10 years to actually get going. The Congress dithered with it, but that amount was about $60 million plus or minus in today's money. So it was a fortune and his idea was this is my instance just plenty of money to build a private charity and let that charity function, and it's totally separate from the government. The government is just the caretaker to make sure that whoever's running it which was the board of regents which they appointed stays with the vision and the will of James Smithson. This is not the will of the federal government, it's the will of the individual and the deal is they become trustees. That's all America. The federal government is Congress, specifically, are the trustees of the Smithsonian Institution. That's it. It has no federal involvement whatsoever.

Speaker 2: 23:58

My lawsuit, which I jumped into, obviously by providence, this was my destiny. I didn't look for it. I ended up after that journey that I shared, my American political journey, traveling the country showing my painting. Do you remember the iconic Obama Hope poster from 2008 and 2013, the Hope by Shepard Fairey? My painting was shown alongside that by the patron and the inspiration behind that. Shepard Fairey was just the artist at the time. He was an unknown street graffiti artist that the guy Yossi Sergent met in LA on the streets, but he met him at an art show. He gave him $100. He said this is the picture I want. I want you to Photoshop this image, which was a photograph from the internet, and add hope. It was his second composition with this hope portrait Cause I met the guy when I showed my painting in LA, but it was amazing how he obviously was the Genesis behind this iconic became an iconic portrait.

Speaker 2: 24:56

And why? Because Yossi Sir Jean, not the artist, the artist, just he did it overnight. He gave him a hundred bucks. He said here it is. It was like a Photoshop photo, that was it. He gave it to Yossi Shishant, who was the marketing genius. He took the image and ran with it across the country into every university campus, and he was the political mind behind it. He made that image become the iconic image of the election of Barack Obama in 2008. It was shown at the Smithsonian for the inauguration in 2009, january 20th. It was shown for the inauguration January 20th 2013,.

Speaker 2: 25:33

As a tribute in the arts to this amazing historical event that had taken place. Wonderful Praise God. That's an amazing American story that had taken place. Another one. Well, then comes the 2015-2016 election, and now it's another candidate and another historical event. A non-political person, this person that is this renowned public figure for years now, suddenly, against all odds. You know, when I painted my painting in the summer of 2015, there were 17 Republican candidates on the stage. Everybody thought that this was an impossible thing. They thought it was a publicity thing that this guy was doing. There were four Democrat candidates maybe five at the time. So this against odds portrait of mine, which was ridiculed, mocked and you know other than Yossi Sajan this is the fascinating thing and this gets into the political spirit that I think we all need to have.

Speaker 2: 26:27

He called me up. He said I've seen your painting I wanted in my show July of 2016 in Los Angeles at the Art of Politics in Politicon, most controversial for me as an evolving, emerging artist. It was an incredible opportunity. To have that shown in that context was remarkable and a validation of this work. And he's like you know, I can't stand Trump. I hate the guy, but I see your painting as a vision of hope and I want it in my show. And he was the most congenial person of the opposite side of the political aisle and confessed hardcore political activists. He said it, but he was always genuine and respectful and we had dialogue and differences and it was a wonderful example.

Speaker 2: 27:18

But there were so few of those people. It was so few. Most people were vicious, hateful, furious, even at that show the stuff and they had to put a guard 24 hours a day in front of my painting. It was so huge, seven by 15 feet they set up these temporary walls. It's really funny. In the massive conference hall they put up these eight foot walls to show all these paintings on little regular size you know large paintings. Here comes this and in the frame it was nearly eight feet by 16 feet. So he brings my painting along and I said, well, you know, I'd like it hung on the wall. He says, yeah, but there's no wall to hang, it's only eight feet tall, so they leave it attached to the wall, sitting on the floor. So the painting is it's like you know, and so they have a security guard that three days 24. And so they have a security guard there three days, 24-7. She's standing in front of him in the protecting. She says, yeah, everybody wants to take a graffiti pen and paint like a Hitler mustache on him and this type of stuff and this whole thing.

Speaker 2: 28:13

That was my journey. So after this remarkable political pilgrimage, trump wins, I'm not surprised People stopped laughing at me and they were like then they didn't want to talk to me because they're like he was right all along. We can't even believe this. And I was like, well, I told you. I said I'm nobody. But you know, I got inspired. I painted this thing. I didn't do it for fun. I didn't commit 600 hours of my life to paint this massive painting for then, to be a joke, I said I really got inspired. So anyway, after the election I was actually quite discouraged because I'm like he won and here's this massive painting, and now what do I do?

Speaker 2: 28:50

And after a few weeks, and I'm like I was bummed out. I'm like what am I going to do? What do I do with the painting? And then I remembered the people that I met on the journey. I met people from all across the country and they would see the portrait and they'd say that needs to be in the Smithsonian, all across the country. And they would see the portrait and they'd say that needs to be in the Smithsonian. This portrait needs to be in the Smithsonian. I didn't even really know what it was. I'm a Brit. I was like I'd heard the Smithsonian is a museum. I thought it was space rockets and trains in Washington DC. And yet this is the deal. I prayed and I said you know what am I going to do? And I remember in my mind, remembering these people say this should be in the Smithsonian. So I get online and I start this is November. I start Googling Smithsonian, smithsonian oh my goodness, there's actually a national Smithsonian national portrait gallery. Oh, painted Great. Go on there. I start Googling oh my God. Oh, look at this. 20, 2008, 2013. They show the Obama hope poster the very one mine was shown within LA. They showed it for the inauguration. They do tributes to incoming presidents. They celebrate the presidential campaign in the arts. I'm like, I'm done, I'm made. My portrait is going to hang in this gallery. This is what they do.

Speaker 2: 30:00

The hostility that I had experienced for a long time that it would be an uphill battle if the controlling individuals in that system were politically averse and in the art world, it is genuinely by far a left-wing, liberally controlled sector of our public expression. It's absolutely and so I was already like okay, it's very possible that this can go sideways, because, remember, after the Trump win of 2016,. The madness that people were losing their minds because he won it was like complete insanity. And I then step into an environment where this is happening behind the scenes and where the director, the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery director herself, kim Sayet, would call me up after this lengthy application progress that I did this whole thing personally, call me up and ball me out on an 11-minute phone call where she tramples my rights. She lies, she shrieks At the end of the phone call after I rebutted all of her arbitrary objections to why my painting couldn't go into this thing. It was all personal, it had nothing to do with the standards, it was all made up. She calls me. I didn't even know, I couldn't believe I was getting this call from the director herself. And then, at the end of the conversation, just to give you an idea of how sideways it went, she goes I'm the director of the National Portrait Gallery, your application will go no further. You can appeal it all you want. And that's how she ended the call. She taunts me and defies me to appeal her objection. And that leads me on to this journey for the next eight, nine years.

Speaker 2: 31:41

Until today, three lawsuits, a Supreme Court petition and these are the things where you start to understand the nature of the Smithsonian. When she said to me you can appeal it all you want, I didn't know what am I going to do. Where am I going to go? Who am I going to appeal it to? I start researching and the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is made up of the Vice President of the United States. Institution is made up of the vice president of the United States. The chancellor of the Smithsonian is John Roberts, the Supreme Court chief justice. There are three members of Congress, three members of the House and nine members of the public make up this board of regents, these trustee board delegates to take care of the Smithsonian. And I was like this is great. I said the chief justice is the chancellor, he's going to hear my petition, he's going to hear my appeal, he's going to look at what she did and be like oh, this is outrageous, nothing of the sort it was.

Speaker 2: 32:31

They kicked me to the curb continually. They defended her. Then I went to my federal lawsuit and I began that whole journey which is in my book. My book covers that whole detailed, remarkable journey, again as a citizen activist, because I sued them myself. I didn't have the means. I'm just an artist self-supporting. I didn't have legal support, I didn't have people funding me, nothing, I just had the internet and I had a desire and an indignant that they trampled my rights.

Speaker 2: 32:59

I know this woman, stumped because of her hatred for Trump, and it all was revealed the foolish woman. On January 21st 2017, the day after Trump was inaugurated for the first time, she goes in what was called the Women's March protest, an anti-Trump protest, and she's posting selfies to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery director page, smiling with her pussy hat on which is that's what they call it, and I'm like. This woman is completely insane. She's like giving away her anti-Trump bias by posting public photographs, violating her own office and duty as the director. The sickness in this institution is so deep because I sued that was part of my evidence as I'm suing the Smithsonian and her. They basically it's. It's a conspiracy of sorts, because I don't know the details until today.

Speaker 2: 33:55

They change the name of the Twitter page. They swap it from at NPG director NPG director. When I first went on there, it had this is the property of the Smithsonian Institution. All the contents and the tweets and the texts are the property. It is copyrighted. They're very strict about their content. That was day one.

Speaker 2: 34:16

The next day after my lawsuit is this is the page of Kim Seatt. It's a private page. All of her expressions are private In order. They were doing it to protect her from culpability of using her position to go on this anti-Trump political march, violating her oath, violating the federal law, you name it. But they go and they defend her and it's like you're losing your mind because you're like how can these people even have a job like this when they can behave so, so gustingly? How can they deny their oath? And it's just to me, it's such an indignation. Years I get into this battle. That's 2017, 2018, 2019.

Speaker 2: 34:55

The Smithsonian Institution, by the nature of who sits on the board? As I just told you, it's members of the federal government, the courts. For years, even in documents that I have, they state that the courts don't even know what the Smithsonian is and that they mess up their rulings because they don't fully understand what it is. What is the legal entity status of the Smithsonian Institution? So I will pause it there, right at my appeal at the US Supreme Court, right before Justice John Roberts, because the whole question that I think is of most importance to your listeners is what is the Smithsonian of this massive, prestigious organization trampling the voices of citizens? Because the Smithsonian Institution in its original form was a gift to the American public, was a gift to you and me. It was a gift to us to benefit us and it's being used now to trample those people like myself who come, who they don't agree with. Unbelievable.

Speaker 1: 36:04

Yeah, that is unbelievable. So obviously they strayed from the original. You know, mission statement, vision statement, whatever you want to call it, for now it's just. You know the federal government runs it like they own it.

Speaker 2: 36:16

Well, that's exactly the point, right, what you just said. In my case, in 2018, before Judge Trevor McFadden, federal judge, because I was doing this myself. I'm a curious person. I did all the research, I found out the history Again amazing journey of learning. I was like hold on, this is just a private charity. It's just a private charity. It's just like a church. It's a private nonprofit organization. That's all it is. And the government is just the guardian. It has no legal responsibility other than to be the trustee and they have no political influence. They have no voice. This is the voice of James Smith.

Speaker 2: 36:49

So I discover all this and I argue that most Americans, elias, that I've met and I can tell you this after nine years of being involved in this I asked them straight off the bat what's the Smithsonian Institution? I've done this on the streets of Washington DC now twice in front of the Smithsonian, interviewing people. Tell me what the Smithsonian Institution is. It's a government agency, it's the federal government, it's the government, it's our national museum and all this type of stuff. I've spoken to people, politicians, I've spoken to officials. You cannot believe how wrong this whole swath of people are about what the Smithsonian is. And, remarkably, when I did my research after the case was ruled on. I went and dug into it. I wish I had have done it before, but now it's all valid. In what I'm doing right now, I found all of the newspaper articles from like the 1900s and the 1800s the Washington Daily Star and I have this newspaper. It's on the front of my website for those who are interested which is called smithsoninstitutioncom. It's not Smithsonian, it's smithsoninstitutioncom. The first page You'll see a copy of this newspaper article and it's showing from 1927, it tells a story of people who are visiting Washington DC from the Midwest. It recounts the story and they see the Smithsonian Institution and they're like oh my goodness, look at this government agency, look at this, look at this. And the article says and yet they find out once they start, once they go into it, that it's not a government agency, it's a private charity, it's a private trust. They go into it that it's not a government agency, it's a private charity, it's a private trust. And so you have stories documented from the very founding of the institution. Because of its proximity to Washington DC, because of its location on the mall it's right there on the mall, multiple buildings because of its proximity and because of its relationship to the federal government, which it does have, because the federal government is people by default. They think it's a national museum, they think it's the creation of the government as the work of the government, and it's not, and even articles like that. And so I've argued this ad nauseum.

Speaker 2: 38:56

And the federal judge that I was dealing with was this young judge. He was newly appointed, he was even a Trump appointee. He got it so wrong. In order to defend the Smithsonian, he had to say the Smithsonian Institution is the government through and through. And then he said and though it might have been private in the past, it no longer is because Congress ratified it. He doesn't quote any laws. He doesn't quote any, any, any. He doesn't. He just made it all up because, as most people already sort of subconsciously believe, they think that it's the government, the federal government, and it's not.

Speaker 2: 39:31

Now. I'm going to fast forward you right now. All the way to the last few months I've been, I'm in my third federal lawsuit right now against the Smithsonian. I filed it about six weeks ago. Seven weeks ago. I filed it on the heels of what went on since the president was reelected and Trump started going after the Smithsonian Institution.

Speaker 2: 39:50

What he did on May 30th of 2025 was he fired Kim Sayet, that woman who's the antagonist in my book. She's in this book from page one. She's on the first page of my book. He fires her. He says oh, people have told me that this is a highly partisan and unqualified person. Yeah, because of all the people that around him, even someone like Ed Martin now, who's in the USDOJ I was on his radio show, like two years ago. He has my book, all these people, they know the story about this woman. So he stands up and he just fires this one woman who's the subject of my case. But Trump didn't have the authority to fire her. He's now overreaching. He's now thinking oh, I'm the president, I can fire. No, you can't. It's a private charity. It's like you're trying to fire a pastor of a church. You've got no right to tell it has nothing to do with you, it's a private entity. So I get you know.

Speaker 2: 40:43

The story starts. Believe it or not, my case and my painting in this whole story was number four on the White House's list of 17 reasons to fire Kim Sayet. So that's in the Washington Post article that came out Number four. So it's right there in front of them. Yeah, this is this guy and his journey and this woman, and rightly so. What he said was true yeah, she's highly partisan, she's absolutely. She should be fired Absolutely, but not by you, it should be by the system itself, by the charity. They should have fired her eight years ago because of what she did and they didn't.

Speaker 2: 41:17

So all of this, elias, it gave me a new story, a new chapter, because what it said was that when the Smithsonian finally met to discuss this issue on June 10th now it's nearly two weeks after May 30th of this year they come out and they make a statement we, the secretary, is in charge of hiring and firing, and it says we are an independent entity. That's the official statement. So I'm like, here we go, the federal, the courts say it's the government, through and through. They themselves say it's an independent entity. It can't be both at the same time. It's impossible. It's one or the other, it can't be both. And I said this is now the perfect setting for my lawsuit once again to go ahead. Because why? Because Kim Sayet resigned that same week. She resigned, I was interviewed again and they said so what do you think is going to happen? I said they're not going to fire her because that would then make this whole situation blow up even more scenes. I imagined they would compel her to resign and she resigned, and so, when she resigned, it then validated everything that I said. It validated the reason for firing her as a partisan activist, and I said so.

Speaker 2: 42:28

The Smithsonian officials, who are trustees of the will of Jane Smithson. They are bound by the highest fiduciary duties to exercise non-partial governance of this institution. They have to be the duty of impartiality, the duty of care, the duty of loyalty to this All these duties that trustees are bound by. They violated them all because for eight years, they kept on a woman who was a partisan. In that first case in 2018, elias the judge, even though he said it was the government through and through, he said what she did was odious and partisan. So a federal judge said she's a partisan. He pointed. He said it's perfectly legal what she did, but she's a partisan, however, that works. So they kept on this employee who was a known certified at the judicial height of the district court partisan. The president gets up and says she's a partisan, she needs to go, she resigns. And I said you guys, now you've been signed and sealed as maintaining a partisan actor in office for eight years and I'm going to sue you. So I filed my lawsuits against John Roberts, the Supreme Court justice. Lonnie Bunch is the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, dr Richard Curran, who's another person involved in this whole corruption, and the whole Board of Regents, and I'm filing before the federal court once again to say the whole lot of them, this whole thing, needs to be removed.

Speaker 2: 43:52

There have been three congressional bills to reform the Smithsonian Institution's governance. I compelled my congressman in 2022, this goes back to our being active this guy, joe Sampolinski. I compelled them. They knew my story. I said you need to put a bill on the floor to reform the Smithsonian leadership. They've been trying this for years. They've had no success. He did it. It was ignored, no one paid attention to it. But the point is is that all of these reform efforts have been going on for the last 20 or 30 years and nothing has been able to move the needle nothing at all. And now, maybe, with not just what my lawsuit is now, but what it became this weekend, maybe and this is the breaking news part of it that is soon to come out in the Washington Post. Maybe finally I've tweaked this enough that I've actually set in motion the things that are going to cause this to happen. It's really remarkable right now what is going on behind the scenes. I'm telling you today. It's remarkable.

Speaker 1: 44:47

That is quite the journey, just to say the least. I'm not sure I have that for it, but this is a great inspiration, not just to me. You know I could be selfish about it, the listeners as well. You have this system, but this is proves my point to the fifth power you ought to play the long game. That's right. It's going to be tough. It's going to be hard, just like my loss with the open ballot for New York state. I am in the big apple, by the way. So there you go. This is very New York as cause.

Speaker 1: 45:15

He's currently in the uptown. You know the currently in the uptown. You know the uptown upstate, excuse me. And look he. And I'm gonna say this this is weird for some people. I'm gonna say I don't care, he's a native new yorker. If you've been new york long enough, you're a native. You could earn it. Okay, there's people who were born in new york. That's so anti-new york. I said no, you lose your native new york status. You know, yeah, it's a weird thing, but you know I like it personally because you can earn it. And you know new york, or new york city particular, it's a very migrant oriented city and upstate got its migrants. I'm not gonna discount rochester. Rochester got a good amount of migrants there too, and this when you study you, you realize how blind you are to so many things. I mean, I was very blind to the upstate story, but I don't want to talk about that too much. But look, this is two New Yorkers. Yes, I'm calling him a New Yorker. He's been there long enough, I don't care. You could say I'm sorry.

Speaker 2: 46:12

It's 26 years now.

Speaker 1: 46:15

Oh, five years is the minimum, so he's over. So there you go. Five years is the minimum, so he's over. So there you go. We're not gonna math. He's a new yorker. Just shut up.

Speaker 1: 46:25

If you want to disagree, express your you know your hatred on the comment section, go right ahead. I don't care, I'm just gonna ignore most of them anyways. I was gonna laugh at them just to mock and all that good stuff, but anyways. But my point is let's get to the main point now, because I can get distracted with the silliness. Play the long game, do your research, gather persuasive allies, allies with influence, allies with knowledge, because, especially challenging the federal government and the private charity I'm going to use that now just institutions, institutions who brought private charity, as he clearly laid out, it's a battle, especially with this relationship to the federal government.

Speaker 1: 47:01

Me, when I first saw the missonian, I thought of it. I said no, the, the little logo looks too nice to be a federal government. I would be surprised. I have strong ties to the federal government because it's just close to it. I would say it's probably privately owned but it's run by the federal government.

Speaker 1: 47:16

As a conclusion I would pop up with I would, I would, I would be kind of right but sure, but there's some, you know. But I want to get that detail, that exact. So just be clear, I won't get that precise detail. You just got to be in that extensive research and learn this as you go along, because I mean, no, let me just be honest. Federal abilities are kind of stale and ugly. The spasmodia is so grand and beautiful compared to it. That's my little bias and judgment between a private institution and a government-built institution. They're just no private charity. Let me correct myself there Private charity, you know, it's run by an individual. They have taste and style more than the government. The government got boring style. Yeah, they got Greek influence and all that, but I'm not going to get into it. It's still dull how it's executed, especially if you look inside. Yeah, some of it looks nice, but I could rant about it, but that's not that important. Play it a long game, do your research, get allies so I can help you out.

Speaker 2: 48:13

Well, let me jump in on that point. Yeah, go ahead when my suit is right now and this is what's the news, breaking news of it, and I'll share it with you and your audience so that they can get ahead of the game, in the sense that my lawsuit was filed six weeks ago against the officials on the Board of Regents and that is, the Chief Justice, the people that were involved in letting her, because the Washington Post, not the Washington a New York Times article that came out also with my story in it just about two weeks ago, major story they did on John Roberts, and they did it in response to me bawling them out because they were covering the firing of Kim Seatt and all of these institutions, all the media. They're so biased they defended her as if to say, poor Kim Seatt, she is the mean president, it's like pointing his finger at her and you know he's this. And they didn't do the. They do. Only the Washington Post and maybe one of the America, one or two other outlets did a genuine look at the story all the way back to 2016. The Washington Post was the best. They did a full envoy, full investigation, which was really good, but the rest of them because they didn't want to side with anyone but her. They wanted her to be the victim, the president to be the mean president, and so it's so. It's so sickening to see how biased they are.

Speaker 2: 49:28

And when I read these articles, I wrote to journalists after journalists, and again, this is the activist activist. I wrote an email, one after the other after the other, and I said look, you guys are journalists, you're telling a one-sided story, because, obviously, if you end up telling the true story, you're going to vindicate the president. You don't want to do that, because when he said she's highly partisan, well, he was saying it and the federal judge said it back in 2018, but that's the part that you ignored, that's the part that you didn't write about to say, no, there was grounds to fire her as a partisan. That's the whole the sickness in the media. So, anyway, they did this story, and even in the New York Times story, which was a follow-up, because I wrote this extensive letter to them and I said you guys, you missed the story. You don't do the research, you just show, you just share the one side to make it look like the way you want. It's just sickening, to be honest with you. They make it look like the way you want it. It's just sickening, to be honest with you.

Speaker 2: 50:19

They did a follow-up article and then they emailed me. They said, oh well, we've included you in this story. And I'm like great, all right, good, that was a major major. If you Google it, it's a Washington New York Times article 3,000 words. It was a 16-minute read. It's a big and all.

Speaker 2: 50:42

And in that article they managed to interview and I believe it was one of the congressmen that were present in that june 10th board of regents meeting. They said that john roberts like basically jumped to the defense of kim seh because the congressman was saying, well, just fire her, fire her right now. And john roberts was like, no, we're not going to fire her. And so this documented evidence now again of his defense of this woman who's a partisan unbelievable. This guy's the head judicial officer of the United States court system and here he is standing with a partisan. They know she's a partisan.

Speaker 2: 51:16

When my Supreme Court petition went before John Roberts, he recused himself. It's undocumented. He said I can't have anything to do with it. Why? Because he's the Smithsonian chancellor. So the sickness is so there. But so that's part of my lawsuit.

Speaker 2: 51:30

But what I did in the last two weeks is this, as the president has continued to meddle now in the Smithsonian, now writing all these orders to try to tell them what to take out and what to do, and he's trying to impact the content of the Smithsonian as right as he may be in that the content is baloney, like they have this woke agenda. I would agree with all of that. I've been the victim of it. In that sense, it's not his position to do that. He has nothing to do with it. It's like him trying to tell a pastor of a church what to preach. It's like him reaching into a church pulpit and saying you need to preach this, this, what you're preaching is wrong. This is such a. What he's doing is breaking the law and nobody's doing anything about it. Congress who is the trustee? Not the executive? The legislature the congressional is the trustee, not the executive. The legislature the congressional legislature is the trustee of the Smithsonian. They should have immediately put out a statement saying we are the guardians of the Smithsonian Trust. The executive office has no right to be meddling in the content of the Smithsonian, whether it's right or wrong. It has no right to be.

Speaker 2: 52:33

And the thing about James Smithson's will. He makes no determination of what it should be. He says it's an increase in diffusion of knowledge, and so, whether you like it or not, that's an increase of knowledge, even if it's knowledge that you despise. The only cure for that is not to remove it, because the removal violates the story that you want to tell. And let there be both sides and let let the american public who with it with the benefit, let us go in and get to see both sides and make our minds up about what's the truth.

Speaker 2: 53:09

And that would be a fair, not the government saying no, you now need to take this out because you need to put what I say. That's rubbish, it's like a vibe you want to do. I said I wrote an article recently. It, mr President, get your hands off the Smithsonian. If you want a museum, go get your own museum. In other words, the federal government can build its own museums, can have its own voice expressed, and you can tell your side of history all you want, but that's the federal, controlled museum. This is not that, and so I've sued him. Now. This is the amazing part of the journey right now, which is really the breaking news for you.

Speaker 1: 53:42

Okay, where were we? I think the government's trying to censor us. That's it right there.

Speaker 2: 53:48

No, I'm kidding.

Speaker 1: 53:49

I don't know. I don't know what's causing it, but it's fun to blame the government anyways. Yeah, continue.

Speaker 2: 53:55

All right, the most important part that I have known now for since the research back in 2017, really, this is a legal thing, but it's very interesting. It will be very interesting to your audience Claims against the officers of the Smithsonian that I filed in six weeks ago. They're based on me as an artist and my journey being blocked and by a partisan actor that they kept in office knowing she was partisan. So that's where the legal violation is. But what the president is doing and like I said before, which is reaching into the private institution to tell them what they can and cannot say, is like the government trying to tell a pastor what to preach and can't preach Same, exactly the same. So this overreach and again, is he doing it because he thinks the Smithsonian is a federal government? This is the problem. That goes back to the question that I've had four petitions now to the Supreme Court I'm on my fourth which is asking them the simple question listen, your job is to say what the law is, and you need to say and define exactly what the Smithsonian Institution is legally so that everybody, including ourselves as the beneficiaries we know what our rights are, we know where we stand, we know who owns it, we know who runs it, etc. Etc. Etc. But because of this legal anomaly that has existed now for nearly 200 years, it's very easy for people to take advantage of the confusion, like the president is doing Now. He's either doing it because of ignorance or he's doing it because of knowing that it's a problem that he can just bully his way in and they're just going to do what he says, because he's using Congress to threaten the purse strings of the Smithsonian because they get they appropriate $700 million a year of taxpayer money to run the institution. And again, that wasn't the original intent. It should have just run on private funds. That's the whole point of a private charity. So the legal issue and the question now, which is before the court, is because it's a private trust and a private charity, you and me, the American people, we are the beneficiaries of that trust.

Speaker 2: 55:59

And the question in law becomes what happens if the trust gets corrupted? A lot of times trusts get corrupted. Why? Because the guy that gave the money dies and it's very difficult for the people that are holding his money to not be tempted to do what they want with his money because he's dead and he's not going to be there saying hey, you know what I'm saying. It's easy.

Speaker 2: 56:18

Trusts are notorious for corruption. Because of the death of the person that gave him the money, I got the money. I could do what I want with it. But in law and this is the example in a case in the Supreme Court of Hawaii was that there was a public park given to the people by a private bequest. Someone gave their money make a beautiful park for the citizens of Kapi'olani in Hawaii, and the government in Hawaii of Kapi'olani and the attorney general they all basically conspired to sell off part of the land and develop apartments on it. So they wanted to turn the private bequest into a way of building housing that they could make money off. And so the citizens sued the trustees. They said who in the trustees was the government? And the court said, yeah, citizens beneficiaries.

Speaker 2: 57:11

When the trustees are corrupt, when the attorney general is corrupt, who is the defender of trusts? The citizens can sue the trust there is. It's called standing. There's standing for someone like me to sue the trust.

Speaker 2: 57:25

But the point that's really been undiscovered, which is the news right now, is that the attorney general of Washington DC is a man by the name of Brian Schwalb and he is the. He's like the attorney general of the state. It's not D DC is not a state, it's a district. But they still have an Attorney General and his responsibility in law is to sue or defend us against the corruption of a trust by the trustees, which is Congress, and now the executive branch of the federal government, which is the president. And so I've written to this gentleman this lengthy legal explanation of his duty to defend the Smithsonian Trust against the breaches of trust that have gone on at the highest level in Washington DC. Now this guy just sued the executive last week because of the apparent or supposed encroachment over law enforcement in Washington DC. So he's already taken legal action.

Speaker 2: 58:23

And so now he's been presented with something that I don't believe he knew about, because if he did, he would have already done it and saying your historic role and duty as Attorney General of the District of Columbia is to defend the Smithson Trust, the private charity, against the abuse, negligence, breaches of trust of the trustees, which is Congress, and now the President of the United States, who's not even a trustee. He's committed a crime in trust law, which is called a son-de-tort. It's a son-de-tort violation of a trust, and the remarkable thing about it is when this happens, the courts can say well, mr President, since you violated the trust because you're not a trustee, but you apparently are trying now somebody who's responsible to be the trustee, that Congress has abdicated their duty and so this whole story may turn around, that they actually appoint the guy that's meddling with the Smithsonian to actually be the trustee of the Smithsonian. So this is a remarkable irony, because here I am on this journey, Nine years later, I paint the portrait of this guy.

Speaker 2: 59:43

He's a citizen, he's just a candidate. In the summer of 2015, that goes to the Smithsonian. This whole debacle, this whole legal battle. They don't want him. They're blocking this portrait of Trump in the Smithsonian, blocking this portrait of Trump in the Smithsonian, and then, nine years later, I'm actually filing a suit that potentially will compel the courts to appoint the very subject of my painting to be the constructive trustee of the Smithsonian Institution. And that would be the most hysterical irony of all to say, look, they're making the guy now responsible for what he's trying to meddle with. That's the story right now, which is unprecedented, should I say Elias.

Speaker 1: 1:00:23

Man, you really can't make this up.

Speaker 2: 1:00:26

Nope, and because it's so huge, you see, that the attorney general he doesn't know about it. He just because he would have done it. And now he's confronted. It's in my case and the briefs that I just filed. The judge knows that I've told him. The judge knows that I've invited him to either support my petitions, my motions to the Supreme Court, or he has to act independently and say we're not going to get involved with Raven. He's just. You know, most people see me as this outlier of a character anyway, but if he independently files the motion to the Supreme Court, which he can and must do, which he basically has to ask them the question that I've been asking now for eight years, which is what is the Smithsonian legally? They've ignored the question now three times. I'm on my fourth time. He will be the fifth time.

Speaker 2: 1:01:14

It's like my final effort to compel this question to be answered is probably going to happen because he has such legal gravitas that I have none that they will say we're going to listen to the Attorney General of Washington DC and what do you have to say, mr Schwalbe? And he's going to say what the hell is the Smithsonian Institution? You know what I'm saying? And then, by getting the answer, he'll know what his duty is, what his responsibility. By getting the answer, he'll say this character, raven, was right all along, all of this abuse that he suffered. It vindicates all of my claims. It vindicates everything that I've been saying. It will bring me into a place where, once and for all, I get a conclusion that vindicates and validates my arguments. But the amazing thing is and I don't think it's possible because the Washington Post is going to write this article, god willing, I hope they publish it ASAP. They're going to shine the spotlight on him because if he doesn't do it, the newspaper will say well, mr AG, you have to do it because you're the only one who can defend the Smithsonian, it's your job. And so when he does do that, if in the event that he didn't, by law, it gives me the standing, like in the case in Hawaii, to say the citizen can sue Congress, the citizen can sue the president and defend the private charitable trust. So it's an amazing catch where you can't. It's like I'm playing this chess game that I've got them so set up that they can't. Whatever they do, is going to vindicate me. And it's a very exciting time for me right now, elias, because after all these years of heartache and disappointment and crushing defeats that are illegitimate they were just corrupt defeats All these years of wanting to give up and go away walk away and I've been in that place, I don't want anything to do with it, it's in my I want, I don't want anything. And then suddenly the president points a finger at Kim Sae and tries to fire her and the story comes to the forefront and the Washington Post is calling me up and my whole story now is live and active as we speak. Because of that, suddenly it's as if after all these years, it's going to happen and I want to encourage you folks if you want to watch a really cool film that really encouraged me on my journey.

Speaker 2: 1:03:28

It's called Flash of Genius and it's about this inventor, Robert Kearns. His name is the intermittent windshield wiper in vehicles. They used to just do this. They didn't stop and so if it wasn't raining it would go. You know it was it was. So this guy makes this invention on how to control it so that it just goes every second or two seconds.

Speaker 2: 1:03:50

You know that whole intimate, amazing story because it's a story of a guy who his idea was stolen by Ford. They ripped him off. Ford was so powerful in the city where he lived that none of the lawyers wanted to sue them. They were so afraid of suing this organization. So he sues them himself as an individual. He sues them for years and at the end of it he's vindicated and he wins and he gets this massive settlement.

Speaker 2: 1:04:18

And it's the most amazing story of the determination of one guy who knew he was right. Everyone laughed at and then just like mocked, but he hung in there for like a decade. And when I watched that movie it was like God saying to me this may take you a decade of your life, but basically hang in there. And so that's the encouragement, I think, to the audience and to yourself and all of us to say, yeah, we sometimes are dealing with really discouraging results because of the corruption we're actually dealing with, but if we just hang in there, just keep doing what we do, keep plodding on, by the grace of God, at the right time, we'll get an amazing, amazing, resounding victory.

Speaker 1: 1:04:55

And that is my hope today as I share this with you this is why I push Ground News 1440, the new paper, things like that. So if you get biased news, you'll know what flavor they're in left wing, right wing, sometimes even the center, you'll know what. It is real quick because it aggregates all these sources. That's why I push for these products, because I think they're doing to me a good job and you already said the one side in this of the new york times and other media outlets. This is why these products and these services are great in the first place. So they don't know me. That's how me. I'll say the charitable, shameless plug-in and I'll put those links in the description as well, except for New Paper. New Paper, they know me. That was a great, great. I'm not surprised.

Speaker 1: 1:05:49

This is why I'm just mostly quiet, and you already answered all the follow-up questions I was going to have. I was like, ooh, what about this? Oh, nope, he answered it. He answered it. He answered it. Dang it I. But that's. You know, trump, with the overreach, just really just changed the direction of the whole story and we have to know these things. We have to know our rights, because people are going to do things that are corrupt and overreach. They're just hoping that we're not paying attention. Yeah, yeah, trump could do that. He's the president.

Speaker 2: 1:06:19

Yeah, and the funny thing is, you know, I agree with his accusation against them. I agree with what he's saying, but that doesn't matter. We're a nation of laws. If we do not have the rule of law in place, what is America? Because if you can do that, you can meddle like that. Like I said, the next thing, the government's turning up and I'm writing this blog about it now and I did this graphic of the government forcing the preacher to take in his sermon and say now, this is official government like China, this is official China preaching. You know, this is the government's sanctioned sermon. I mean, what a horror of a scenario. If we allow the government to behave like that, no matter whether we think they're right or wrong, it's the law that we need to follow. That's what keeps us sane, that's what makes America who it is. So that's my position, that I'm going to stand by the law, not by the individual, because that's what I think is going to keep us sane and defend us. Without that, we have nothing.

Speaker 1: 1:07:14

We literally have nothing. No, you'd be an authoritarian nation, which I was rightfully pointed out. Forget about the person, and I said it again, it's about America and the laws. I, I said it again, it's about America and the laws. I don't defend the person as much, I try to defend ideas and rights. That's what's more important. People come and go. People come and go. I'm tired of the idolization of politicians. That's a problem.

Speaker 2: 1:07:42

I don't care if you're white, black, Latino.

Speaker 1: 1:07:43

Sure, and for both the left and the right and even sometimes the center. And yeah, we need to defend laws and all that. Study your Constitution, learn your rights. You can have your positions. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you're just going to defend Trump, no matter what, even if he's violating laws, that's a problem. And I would even say the same thing to Democrat leaders as well. It's about laws, it's about ideas. That's got to be defended. Trump is going to die at some point. He's an old man, for God's sakes, and death is inevitable. We don't know where we're going to go, and this is why I always find it silly defending the idea. I think that's the reason why I got Joel with the Republican part Once that magazine became too crazy. You know I'm going to be independent.

Speaker 1: 1:08:28

Yeah, insane, I'm going to be independent. I was only a registered Republican for two years, but I realized the thing with me. I was definitely more in the center. I was always floating that center politics kind of thing. I was the center left, center right. I said, yeah, I'm a little bit of a wild card. I swim at the moderate, the center pool, if you will, the left, the right. I go over that border multiple times, but it's because I don't believe in being fit into a box and we shouldn't be defending people in law, so it's what we should be defending. That's why I got to know them, because I'm sure a lot of them in the MAGA movements are saying, oh, he's doing the right thing, either out of ignorance, or they choose to support that corruption willingly. Either or.

Speaker 2: 1:09:12

It doesn't matter, it's bad. And the beautiful thing about this whole thing is that what I just shared with you before it should, and I believe now it has to, because of who's involved. It is going to compel that answer, and who benefits from it? It's us. You see, it protects the next artist, whether you're a left wing or right wing. It protects who doesn't matter. It protects the next artist or the next participant in the Smithsonian from being kicked out at the door because you're going to arrive knowing your rights and you're going to arrive saying, yeah, this is my right, this is what's true. They have a job to do. I'm a participant in this trust. I can participate. They have their rules. They need to follow their rules. Everybody plays by the rules. Everybody's happy. This is the result that will come. The next artist will not have to suffer what I suffered because they're going to have legal standing to say hold on a second, this is what the law is, this is what we're talking about. That's, to me, the result of when we fight for these rights. It then protects the next generation of people to say, hey, we're not leaving them abandoned to this quagmire of corruption that they're going to sink into, and it's been so personally difficult for me. There's been really no upside to this for me in 10 years, other than there's been great experiences and all this is great, but the majority is constantly because the people around me and this is again the problem with the status quo the people around me, they don't know, they're not going to say, oh, yeah, Raven, we think you're right, they have no clue. The people that they're all like sheep. They're like they have waiting for the officials, they're waiting for the Supreme Court to tell them what to believe. They're waiting for oh, we'll believe those people. And it's like, well then we've got to get those people to say something, because they're not listening to me. They think, Raven, oh, you know, he's just this outlier and I'm like, yeah, maybe so because I'm all alone doing this, because no one else is banging this drum, and it's like but at the end, at the grace of God, the vindication will be the greatest experience of my life, in the sense that I'll be able to say, you know, and it's not to say, oh, I was right, I was right, it's not that, it's yeah, you want to be right because it's true, you want to be right because it's just, it's right because it's beautiful. You know justice and truth are beautiful. You know they make our life worth living. They frame the world in such a way that it restrains the madness of the lawless world. That's how the chaos of all these countries of law. It's beautiful. The truth is beautiful. It's one that sets us free, as Jesus says. And so this is the upside for us and, God willing, for me personally, when that day happens to say, well, there we go. And I pray and hope for the audience that they are inspired.

Speaker 2: 1:11:56

And, like I said at the beginning, if you see a pothole in your street and you curse that pothole every day, don't Fix it. If you can't get someone to fix it, go buy a sack of cement and just fix it. Start doing something, little things, writing letters making. If you see something you disagree with, you know, write a letter. Learn about the issue. Write another letter. Keep writing letters. Letters are powerful. You keep writing letters. Eventually it'll pay off. Make phone calls. Start learning how to express your voice of frustration in a way that people can listen to. It might take you 10 years, but at the end of the day you'll be able to say to your children or your grandchildren say you know what? It was worth it, because I established a right for people that is going to protect them from here on in, and that's a beautiful thing. So that's my story, Elias, and as a fellow New Yorker, I say thanks for having me on here. It's been a pleasure, my friend.

Speaker 1: 1:12:48

I'm just not surprised. I already hit gold here Just reading you up. I said no, I got to have you on. It was no brainer for me. I said no, I got to have this, I don't know Rainbow Party, green Party, working families or well, maybe, except for the Nazis. No, I want you gone, that one, nope. And the far left, the far right, I want y'all gone too. Nope, I don't care. This is why I'm militant. I don't give a rat's behind about your rights Militant middle there we go.

Speaker 1: 1:13:22

Yeah, militant middle there you go. No, I don't care about, nope, nope. And the middle needs to be more militant. You're like, oh, we go with the wind. No, no, I don't believe in that. No, no, no, no, I like that. The militant middle. I'm going to take that All right Enough of for what it is. Look, this is an inspiration to me to fight just to improve new york voting laws statewide. And I lost my bat. I gained a victory, a small victory, but the battle was lost, and then I'm just gonna try it again try it again because I came in there really in the last minute, if I'm gonna be honest with myself.

Speaker 1: 1:13:58

So I was like, okay, I just do what I can with a little time I have and obviously my stats and all that. Some people get turned off by that. So, look, I think we should let it be in the ballot and let the people vote on it, and if people don't want it, fine, then the people have decided. But for you to not allow it it's not allowing. You know, if you want to see if people really want it, put it in the ballot.

Speaker 2: 1:14:32

See the results, results. If people end up wanting it, which they're afraid that they would, they didn't put in the ballot. So that's my, that's my minor fight compared to this nearly decade legal case here me, I'll just they're all important, they're all. That's the point. You see a lot. That's the point. Imagine, just imagine if everybody took on a battle. Small p pothole. You know something in the legislature, something everybody. You know the color of the sign or whatever it is or you got involved personally.

Speaker 2: 1:14:51

You run for office and you try to want to be, and you educate yourself and you get equipped and you get ready. Imagine if, every imagine if it was taught at school that it's not just like civic knowledge, it's we're going to teach you civic power, how to do this, how to do this so that when you leave school, this is just part of being an American. This is our normal life. We work, we have family, we love being here. That's all great, but there's a portion of my life that is dedicated. It's like military service, but it's civic service and it's part of who we are. If we had a culture like that, our world would be a whole different world. And that's, you know, it's a belief, it's a. You know, it may be just an impossible dream, but it's a good dream.

Speaker 1: 1:15:39

I agree, me, you know. I actually learned some of my civic duties. Ironically, it's from a mom who was not that educated. But she, how to advocate, I'll tell you. I mean, she was smart lady, not to say you know, educated, smarter two different things, sure, but she was a smart lady. She had a lot of practical intelligence. She taught me a little bit believe it or not how to civically do things. She probably didn't realize that, but she was ready to give me a little. She, I think she kind of planning to say I'm not sure she was fully aware of it. I can't, I can't justify that, at least not yet. Let's have a conversation with her. She got what she wanted. She advocated for the family. She, she did those things and and this was we talking about 90s and all that and she gained victories.

Speaker 1: 1:16:22

And take as long as 10 years. It took like a few years. But regardless, fight, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing, you're gonna get nothing. Doing nothing equals nothing. It should be easy math, you know, unless you're lucky to have someone who's brave, like julian raven, who's dealing with this nearly this nearly decade battle against the smithsonian and the government. Let's be clear, it's, you know, and government could be what the supreme court because of chief justice roberts, that's, that's their, that's a direct um relation right there.

Speaker 2: 1:16:52

Congress, yeah, so you're finding multiple entities right there and that's it's yeah, you see the I'm going to show you the front cover of my book again. I did this 2022. I had a little less hair at that time, as you can see, but I'm holding a chain with three collars on it. The beast in the book is Cerberus. He's the mystical Greek hellhound that was guarding the gates of hell. And there you see Cerberus standing up, because in my lawsuit the judge calls the government. He says well, you know, the Smithsonian is like Cerberus. He says because it's got three heads. And it's like well, again, his wrong interpretation is that just because the government officials it's not the government, but he called it that. That's why I called my book Cerberus there. But it's interesting how my battle is against these three heads of the government there. And it's like well, what is the American citizen to do? What are we made of? What are we for? Where are we from? What's the point If it's not all about battling a corrupt?

Speaker 1: 1:17:50

government. That's the whole point of American foundings. That is very American and American as you can get Exactly. And look, he's a migrant. This is why I am not against migrants at all. This is another reason to be pro-migrant, not illegal, violent migrants. I want I support the republicans 100. Either me, I'll go crazy to either just just just just get rid of them. However migrants looks he's more american, I'll say, than a lot of native-born americans, just based on that battle alone. He wasn't born in america. You need to be born in america. So that's ridiculous. If, if anything, some migrants got to remind us why America is great. I know Trump don't like hearing that. I don't give a rat's behind. And Biden, it's not what you think either. You want to use them for votes?

Speaker 2: 1:18:36

Yeah, I would say, immigrant is the better term there for me.

Speaker 1: 1:18:41

You're right. Oh yeah, you're right, you're right, you're right. You see, I don't mind being corrected. Immigrants it was about my ego. Julian will never be here. Okay, let's just be clear. I don't care about my ego that much.

Speaker 1: 1:18:54

Immigrants. Immigrants make america awesome and we are an immigrant nation. We can't forget that. I know some on the right, especially the far right, hates that. Oh well, that's their problem. And the left you likes to exploit it for your own purposes. I don't like that either. This is another reason why I am not anti-migrant. If you have a xenophobic position, I get there's concerns, but it doesn't mean you should just close the border and just get rid of every single migrant who already made contributions to this nation. It doesn't always have to be exploited for cheap labor. I don't like that either. He's fighting for rights. This is the migrant story I enjoy. Immigrant story, excuse me, immigrant story that I enjoy hearing. Okay, this is this is going to impact all of us. Rather, you realize it or not, it doesn matter. It's going to impact all of us. So I want to say I thank you. You keep up the brave fight. You're the lone soldier, slash general, but you know the only way why it's possible? Because of the great GOD, that's right.

Speaker 2: 1:19:59

Only.

Speaker 1: 1:20:00

Only Because this is the only way it makes sense. How can you fight this long? No, you would have gave up, we would have forgot about this and the corruption would have persist and grown, because corruption grows if you do nothing about it.

Speaker 2: 1:20:18

God gives you enough little sprinklings along the journey that you know that. You know that. You know that. You know that. You know without a shadow of a doubt that he's with you on that journey. And as hard as it can be, you just drag yourself along the floor a lot of the time. Just keep doing it, just keep plodding on.

Speaker 1: 1:20:34

No, yeah, exactly, Exactly. So I think it's a good time to wrap up because he's gave us so much. Listen, you're not getting a freebie of everything. You need to make money too. You know legal battle. Come on, you can help them out a bit. Okay, legal battles they cost money. Okay, not gonna ask how much you find that out, that's up to me. Wants to answer it? Okay, I'm not sure you said well, go fund me for that I haven't.

Speaker 2: 1:20:59

I'm just I'm the type of person that I'm so focused on my objective that, as much as you'd like people to support, I don't want to be like dependent upon that, because again it goes back to the thought that, well, why are we supporting this? We don't even understand it. I've had people yell to my face you know how dare you sue the Smithsonian like that? I'm like what, like that, I'm like what? So if I was to rely on anything like that, I would be more discouraged because it's like pulling teeth and so I'm like I just do this my little self. It's a lot of hours, it's time and dedication and focus and thank God for learning, and the internet is a huge, huge gift and that's it.

Speaker 2: 1:21:42

And I just want to say this as I mentioned that movie, there's another movie called Gideon's Trumpet, which is from the 60s, about a prisoner who a true story a prisoner who appeals to the Supreme Court by himself. Clarence Gideon is an amazing story, true story about the American legal system, how one man from jail wrote a petition to the Supreme Court and they heard his petition and his life was changed Again. A great inspirational aspect of looking at what we have in America, with all of its faults, it's the best system that's out there and we need to keep using it to make sure it stays like that. So that's another inspirational source to look at.

Speaker 1: 1:22:21

Look at a man. Who man who was jailed? Yeah, no excuse In jail.

Speaker 2: 1:22:26

In jail. Okay, he was in jail.

Speaker 1: 1:22:28

He was in jail. No excuse people If you could do that in jail. In jail, we got a lot more choices and options, you know, as opposed to being in prison. I mean, come on, you see things like this when people would start with the absolute disadvantage, yet come out on top this this really turns right there you look that I mean we could go on for another three hours.

Speaker 1: 1:22:51

I'm not gonna compete with rogan here, but let's just do some shameless plug and you're ready. Show your book several times and make sure you're getting the right one. Look, he's chained up, he has a server, is guarding that smithsonian charity. I'm gonna call like that. You know. I'll say vigorously and strongly okay, he's a sad, he's a competent evil dog. I'll say like that, he's three-headed. Yep, three has represented the three branches of government, but multiple entities, I mean it's. I mean the symbolism is actually great. I mean you don't get a lot of that anymore. So that's why I'm falling apart. We not focus on rights and big issues like that. I know I may sound conservative to you. Some issues yeah, I am kind of conservative on some of the issues. You focus on civic duty more often. You know that, ironically, this podcast has inspired me to do that. This is why I I'm joining political organizations.

Speaker 2: 1:23:43

It wasn't for that it wasn't for people.

Speaker 1: 1:23:44

Yeah, I think I would have been just a 30-some-year-old guy shouting at the mic for no reason, making absolutely no impact. Okay, just be very honest. All right, so I'm going to link your site as well. And what else do you want my viewers and listeners to do? Well, if they want to read the briefs.

Speaker 2: 1:24:04

You can go if you have court access. The case has been called Raven versus Roberts. You can Google that it comes up under court listener, but there you have to have access to actually get the documents. On my page at smithsoninstitutioncom under litigation, you can begin to find the. There's lots of them in this. You know there's a whole bunch of these motions now that I filed and the recent amended brief, and that way you can get a real sense of you know what's going on and it's it's an education you know. Just I it's what I've learned. I'm just sharing it through what through you know, in that sense, the, the legal channels. So yeah, smithson institutioncom, if you're an arts, you want to see my art, you can go to julianravencom see my paintings, because I am a painter who paints landscapes.

Speaker 1: 1:24:46

I'm a photographer, and so you can see my work online as well yeah, man, we override the government conspiracy trying to silence us, so so support us. Actually allegedly I'm just kidding about that it could be just a simple glitch, really, I mean. But for the conspiracy theories, just, you want to go with the narrative? Go right ahead, I don't care. You do whatever with that, all right, so that's your. Plug it out for my podcast. Plug in like comment, subscribe. And when you subscribe, make sure, if you want, I encourage you, you know, click on all, so you, so you won't miss anything in this podcast. Ok, click on all so you won't miss anything in this podcast. Okay. And when it comes to reviews, give it on the Apple podcast. That's the ones I take seriously.

Speaker 1: 1:25:29

The one on Spotify, I don't care. If you do it there, I'm going to ignore it. And I've said it multiple times already Do it there, I'm going to ignore it, because I don't care about Spotify. Spotify is more my personal music playlist, that's it. I'm not gonna budge. I'm gonna be crazy in the federal government. I'm not gonna budge because my playlist, okay, I pay for it. So that's it. And and if you want, if you want to subscribe, put some money down. You'll get some shout outs.

Speaker 1: 1:25:55

I'm gonna start making exclusive content, and this is when you're gonna see me be truly uncensored and even give certain crazy opinions that are just try to dodge certain words or use creative substitutes. They're just gonna say like out there, you know, like will be a good word, um, that'll be censored a lot. It could be the one that rhymes with grape. That's very horrible. You know what that word is. Last hint it starts with the r. All right, so, and instead of you know. And then this is the other one. I love the internet's creativity here, especially for streamers. You know, self-delete, um, you know, you end your life. I'm just gonna say the word straight up. It's weird we in this time, but I think this is another battle right here for um. Internet freedom of speech the only restriction I will support is make sure minors who have access to it. That's the only restriction I will easily support. To me, that's a no-brainer, because minors have access to that content. It really ruins their brains and it shares with someone that could really really get a jolt of encouragement.

Speaker 1: 1:26:59

Spiritual sustainability yes, I'm going to say that. Spiritual sustainability I don't care if it's cringe to some of you. You need it, I need it. Everyone who's the followers of God, even you atheists that choose to die. You need this too. Mentioned that very briefly, so hey, you know I don't. It's funny.

Speaker 1: 1:27:26

Well, I think my atheists are mostly friendly, except for those who start with vicious vitriol. That I'm just as aggressive, uh, so well, you. This is why you, you, you need, you, need this. But, unlike most christians, I'm not going to beat you to death with the bible. I want you to go your own journey, because each human got their own journey, how they get there. So just me lecturing you to death and beat you literally with a thick bible? It would hurt if you use enough strength to whack the person. You know. Here's some holy tough. Love you, heath.

Speaker 1: 1:27:52

That's not the right way, people. That's not the right. That's what you should not do. See what they add, build a rapport and you see goals from there. Trust me, sometimes it takes long and sometimes it's miraculously quick. It depends, depends. It doesn't always take long for a good solution. Okay, all righty, then I'm going to end it right here.

Speaker 1: 1:28:08

This is a good, very long episode. I don't mind it. It was a lot of value. Take this seriously, people, because the more we don't do anything about it, the more. We keep giving rights away to government. It's very rare for them to even give it back. Even give it back almost never. So let's, this is not right wing or left wing. This is just what we should do as citizens. This is, uh.

Speaker 1: 1:28:29

Look, he's more american than I would say. I would say half the american guests that I got right just based on that fight. He's not even half. You know what? Let me correct that three-fourths, three-fourths. There you go. That's the number. I can say it passionately. That was me too. I was me too conservative with that. Three-fourths at least, and I'm sure, if I dig deeper, you'll probably be in the top nine, maybe in the top 10, if I keep digging further, I'm sure of it.

Speaker 1: 1:28:52

Okay, I mean, he did a beautiful painting. I like the obama painting, but I'm going to pick my personal favorite. I actually love the trump painting a lot more than the obama, because not just it was grand, the details were amazing and I could tell it just came from this. It has to be spiritual, it has to be inspired, real artistic inspiration, just to do that huge mural of Trump. Look, I would say I will. I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, I got to say, the artwork itself is amazing, just the art. I could stare at that a lot more than the Obama Hope. The Obama Hope looked like it's something you could Photoshop and just add a few colors and that's it.

Speaker 1: 1:29:30

It's efficient, but I can tell Yours was not efficient. It wasn't even practical, you could say, but the execution ended up being amazing, to say the least. We're talking about efficiency and practicality. It's not those things. But it is a miracle that it can't be and it wasn't damaged from the radicals, because a lot of beautiful artwork has been damaged by those people who throw paint and eggs and all kinds of filth, which I which I always, I always hated that I said can you do something better instead of just throwing something that paint? You know paintings and artwork? No protests out there. Go bother your government. I don't care if you want to harass them a bit, I don't care about that. I don't mind those protests. But if you're going to destroy history and artwork just because you're feeling a certain way, just because you disagree, you're the enemy in my book and enemy in my book and that's why that's what some of these left-wing movies have lost.

Speaker 2: 1:30:23

I will join a few of them, but some of them is just no, I don't care about that no, it's the same as the president reaching into the smithsonians to tell them what they can and cannot do. You know it's the same telling a preacher what he can preach.

Speaker 1: 1:30:33

You try to tell people what they can paint whenever you complete this audio or visual journey, you have a blessed day, afternoon or night.