37 der attack and people wanting to rename the schools. I think that what this whole agenda is and the ultimate purpose of this is to get rid of the Constitution. What they are going to do is say, “This was a Constitution created by a number of white males, land and property owners, and the Constitution is no longer reflective of our modern values and our modern technology.” Fitts: “It’s out of date; it’s old.” Farrell: “It’s part of a bygone era, etc.” So, behind all of this culture war, it is being used to drive an agenda and the agenda is to end the Constitution. I’ll say it again, and you and I have discussed this before, you turn over a Constitutional Conven- tion to this current political class and this current popular culture, which does not understand these things, and you are going to have a real mess. You are no longer go- ing to have the Constitutional protections that you now have. I think this is a cultural agenda that is driving a political agenda. Fitts: One thing that I’ve seen in the last two months, and I have really come to appreciate it, is I flew to Bangladesh just to do an interview with Cynthia McKinney. If you look at who is pushing the cultural war, that is the group that she did war with. She calls them the Ziocons. They threw her out, and she regained her posi- tion. They threw her out again, and she has been fearless in warring with them. She knows them and she understands them. I flew to Bangladesh to sit down with her because, before I did an interview, I needed to talk with her. We talked for a week before we did the interview. We talked about, “What do we do? How do we do it?” Then I wrote something called, How to Enforce the Constitution, and that is available publicly on the web. What I discovered, and what she and I talked a great deal about before the inter- view, was that the American people have lived their entire lives under the umbrella of the protection of the Constitution. Even though it’s been disrespected, even though it’s been eroded, even though they’ve played all of these games with national security, we have no concept of what it would be like if it wasn’t there. We’ve lived our entire lives under the umbrella, and we can’t fathom what it’s like when the umbrella comes down. I can, because I’ve lived outside and, to a certain extent, you have lived outside so we can envision it. However, most Americans have no idea – despite all of the erosion – what an obstacle it is for these folks. Farrell: It’s an obstacle, and I think that it is important for people to understand why. As long as it is there as a governing document or a governing compact, there is a certain segment of people in the govern- ment and a certain segment of people in society, and a certain segment of people in various corporations that are going to be obedient to it in a sincere fashion. Remove that and put in something that is concocted by social justice warriors such as Antifa, and so on, and ‘update’ the Constitution and remove that, all of those protections disappear. Fitts: That includes the right to own property. Farrell: Precisely.That includes the right to own property. If you remove that, one thing that the framers of the Constitution did in order to insist upon a continuation of the sovereignty of this nation was placed a clause in the Constitution that all of the debts incurred under the Articles of Confederacy would still be acknowledged under the new Constitution. In other words, the Constitution, in that sense, did preserve the connection to the old Articles. I’m a fan of the Articles, but I’m not a big fan of the current Constitu- tion, however, I am adamant that getting rid of this would be far, far worse. I hear Libertarians say, “The Constitution is the root of many of the problems.” That may be, but you don’t want to get rid of the final thing that offers protections to our basic rights. If the government continued to acknowl- edge the debt, it continued to acknowledge the principle of property. What we see now, in terms of the social justice war- riors – and I’ve spoken about this before at some of your events – is the application of cultural Marxist tactics in order to achieve a political agenda, and that agenda is pre- cisely to overturn the Constitution. So you could lose your property rights, and at the same time, it would allow the people who have driven these debts and driven the financial mess that we’re in to escape any responsibility. You’ve raised that issue very many times. Fitts: Here is why I think the Libertarians are all wet: When they say that the Consti- tution is all wet, we have not enforced the Constitution. Farrell: That is the big problem. Fitts: If you look a the source of the prob- lems, it is the absence of enforcement. So I have always said, “Crime that pays is crime that stays.” The missing money – thanks to Dr. Mark Skidmore and his team from Michigan State University – as documented on our website with government documents from two agencies – and remember that there are 21 covered agencies – amounts to $21 trillion dollars. I expect that these two agencies are the worst, but I haven’t yet checked the other 19 agencies. That is $1 trillion more than the total debt of the United States. I appreciate that an undocumentable adjustment does not represent cash, but I also would say that, if you refuse since 1996 to produce audited financial statements as required by law, your financials are meaningless. You are a liar, and you are a criminal enterprise. If you simply sat down – and this is what Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and I talked about – and enforced the Appro- priations Clause and the War Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution that says, “Congress has to authorize each war.” We put into place a blanket authorization after 9/11 that basically said, “You can run throughout the world and kill anybody and do whatever you want, including using drones to assassinate people who have had no due process, including American citizens.”