Transcript for my conversation with Stephen Villee 5/29/2024

Speaker 1: Stephen Villee

Speaker 2: Mark Puls

[Speaker 2] (0:00 - 1:03)

Hey everybody and welcome to another episode of Knocked Conscious. Today I have the honor of speaking with a gentleman named Stephen Villee. I met him through FreedomFest.

So log on to freedomfest.com, use code CONSCIOUS50, get $50 off the current package. So do that, go to FreedomFest, it's Vegas, July 10th through the 13th, it's a fun time. So Stephen was kind enough to join me.

He is the founder of the Club 75 Alliance. So I watched a brief podcast with Stephen, so I got a little bit of the information, but I love to hear the origin story. I'm an origin story guy because a lot of people come at you where they're at and you come at you where you're at, but if I don't know how you got there, I can't relate to you, right?

So I love people to show their work, if that makes sense. So tell me about this, Stephen, and welcome to Knocked Conscious.

[Speaker 1] (1:03 - 2:33)

All my life, I have not liked income tax. I've always thought it was just a bad idea. You spend hours every April 15th, if you're lucky, just filling out all these forms.

Anyway, so I've been studying it sort of theoretically. I don't know if you're familiar with the book. It was written back in 1954, actually, called Income Tax, the Root of All Evil by Frank Chodoroff.

Anyway, so briefly, Club 75 refers to people whose income is 75,000 or more. That's one of several demographics that's a discussed by the IRS in their publication 1304. So that group, people whose income is 75,000 or more, they make up a minority, just a little over a quarter, 29% of taxpayers, but they're paying 90% of all federal income tax.

So it's very lopsided and so the Club 75 Alliance is an effort to concentrate those people, really anyone who doesn't like income tax, but particularly people whose income is in that category, to move to New Hampshire. And if we can get enough people moved here, we can hopefully push for a negotiated, peaceful secession that will let us opt out of income tax, opt out of federal income tax.

[Speaker 2] (2:34 - 3:27)

Federal, right. Obviously, we do have a couple of states that do not have state income tax. You're speaking specifically federal.

And it's interesting because you do kind of generalize income tax and I think people don't understand that difference. So kind of leading with the federal thing helps. It was confusing for me just in the beginning, like I said, just when I first looked you up, but it makes sense.

So 75,000 makes sense. Now, what came to me right away, and I'm just one of these thinkers that just pops stuff out there. So I know that the tax bracket shifts at like 86 or something.

Doesn't it go somewhere between like 86 and 87, the federal income goes to another level. I was wondering why you cut it at 75 versus maybe where it would hurt people right in that spot where you make more money, but you're actually making less than someone who gets taxed less right in those weird cuspy areas.

[Speaker 1] (3:27 - 3:56)

The reason for 75,000 is that this publication I referred to 1304, it has various cutoff levels and 86,000 is not one of them. It's not going by the progressive measure of it. It's just there's a 50,000 level, there's a 75,000 level and so on.

And at 75,000, you see this statistic that it's 29% of taxpayers, but they're paying 90% of all federal income tax.

[Speaker 2] (3:57 - 4:07)

Right. And does it also, does your group take into account that 75,000 is sustainable to live a life, that income? I would assume in that.

[Speaker 1] (4:09 - 4:17)

In some places it is, in other, I mean, in a very expensive place, it wouldn't be, but yeah, I think 75,000, you can live on that. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (4:18 - 4:20)

So when did you start the project? When did the project come to?

[Speaker 1] (4:20 - 4:27)

Oh, it's been ongoing for years. Okay. Actually, let me give some background here.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Free State Project.

[Speaker 2] (4:29 - 4:31)

Very similar to Free Cities and things like that.

[Speaker 1] (4:32 - 5:40)

Okay. So it was founded in 2001 when a guy named Jason Sorens figured out that libertarians are in the minority and they always will be. And the only hope of libertarians ever getting really representation is to concentrate themselves in a state.

They had a, well, he first, he just looked for people to join up and hundreds of them did within a short time. And by 2003, there were 5,000 joiners in this group. And so they held a vote to decide which state to move to.

And in October of that year, it was announced that they had chosen New Hampshire. And there were all kinds of criteria for that. Part of it was a border with Canada, a port where big boats could come in and out, proximity to Boston was part of it, and just generally the low population and the fact that it's just always had a little bit of a libertarian bent.

[Speaker 2] (5:41 - 5:41)

Excellent.

[Speaker 1] (5:42 - 7:24)

Okay. So you might say that the Club 75 lands is what I wish the Free State Project had been from the beginning. I was one of the earliest movers.

I was actually mover number six and that was in December of 03. So I've been here for a little over 20 years. 20 years.

Yeah. That's great. And they've done okay, but well, like, so as an example, one thing that I think is hurting the Free State Project a little bit is their stated goal is a society where the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

And that's all fine, but anyone who knows anything about libertarianism would look at that and say, in order to achieve that, you're going to have to secede. There's no way you're going to be anywhere near that goal of such a small government, as long as you're still part of the United States and still paying federal income tax and still under the control being, you know, living under all these federal regulations. And yet the Free State Project is officially neutral on secession.

So one of the twists that the Club 75 alliance is being openly in favor of secession. The other thing is, you know, the focus on people at this income level. Instead of just saying, bunch of libertarians, let's move libertarians here.

I'm sort of reaching out to people who don't necessarily know that they are libertarian. They just have relatively high income. And so when you point this fact out to them that they're paying 90% of federal income tax, then they say, whoa, let's do something about that.

And that may spark a libertarian spirit.

[Speaker 2] (7:25 - 7:37)

Yeah. Well, and you mentioned in the other podcast, just as a reference, you have libertarian ideas, but you're not like stamped true blue libertarian, correct?

[Speaker 1] (7:37 - 7:47)

I guess you could say that. Yeah. I mean, a lot of people say, for example, taxation is theft.

I don't go quite that far. I'm okay with taxes. I'm okay with.

[Speaker 2] (7:49 - 8:08)

You're the one of the like reasonable, or you would say reasonable taxes, or certain things do need to be funded generally to help societies as whole, like fire departments, police departments, things like that, obviously, versus voluntarism or whatever. Okay. Excellent.

So you've been in this 20 years. How many members would you say you have to your project currently?

[Speaker 1] (8:09 - 8:27)

It's really, it's only a handful, like maybe five or so. I mean, people within the Free State Project have expressed interest in it, but as far as actually joining and being an active member, it's like about five or so.

[Speaker 2] (8:28 - 9:18)

Right. So obviously, we understand the state piece. What have you considered possibly shrinking it down to more of like a free city level within a state and try to work within a state to do that?

That's an idea. Prosperity, compensation, make up possibly for a federal income tax that keeps you in the union or part of the union? Because I feel like there's challenges with the income tax leaving.

I don't know if the country would be so kind to keep you as a citizen. You know what I mean? Well, I mean, obviously, we're trying for secession, which means we're not going to be- I thought you mentioned something about having kind of, you were talking about expats and losing the US citizenship, but keeping, right?

You do want to keep that US citizenship as part of it, correct?

[Speaker 1] (9:19 - 9:23)

No, no. Oh, no, not at all. Because as long as we remember- Completely secession.

[Speaker 2] (9:24 - 9:25)

Okay. So I misunderstood. My apologies.

[Speaker 1] (9:26 - 9:56)

Remember, the United States is the only major country that taxes based on citizenship. So even if we moved somewhere else to the UAE or even Monaco or someplace like that, as long as we were US citizens, we would still have to pay US federal income tax. So that's why we want to raise.

That's why it's so important for New Hampshire to become an independent country with a recognized passport and get international recognition and so on.

[Speaker 2] (9:56 - 10:05)

Yeah. And I was just wondering, maybe perhaps I just misunderstood because there was something about the expat piece about giving up the US citizenship and you don't want to give that up per se somehow.

[Speaker 1] (10:06 - 10:11)

Okay. Well, I did point out there is a thing called the Reed Amendment. I don't know if you're reading about that.

[Speaker 2] (10:11 - 10:19)

Okay. Yeah. If you could clarify that.

Like I said, I'm very new into this and I'm busy and trying to work things out. So thank you so much for clarifying.

[Speaker 1] (10:19 - 10:38)

The Reed Amendment is something that many people are unaware of. And when they hear about it, they say, what? Is this happening in a free country?

Basically what the Reed Amendment says is if you renounce your US citizenship for the purpose of saving money on taxes, then at least theoretically, you are not allowed to ever visit the United States ever again.

[Speaker 2] (10:39 - 10:40)

Never to visit.

[Speaker 1] (10:41 - 11:05)

Yeah. So it would be like if you moved from California to New Hampshire or something, it would be like California saying, well, okay, then you're not allowed to set foot in California ever again, which is, you know, if you think about it that way, it's kind of childish, but mainly it's just, you know, why would a free country do this? So, but there it is.

And that's why people who join this need to be aware of that, that there is this Reed Amendment.

[Speaker 2] (11:07 - 11:34)

Yeah. So, so I recently saw in the papers or not the papers, geez, that makes me sound even older than I am. In the funnies, I saw something online where six cities are looking to secede Oregon or- Yeah.

And join Idaho in some- Idaho, yes, yes. Have you thought about any kind of groundswell using that as some momentum for this project during any way? It seems like they got some- Not specifically.

[Speaker 1] (11:34 - 12:23)

Again, not specifically, it's an example of people, it's not really the same thing because they're not leaving the United States, but they are- Right, right. They're just shifting states. Right.

What we have looked at is there was a poll a couple of years ago about how do people feel about secession generally? And there's this whole national divorce movement, which I don't actually approve of it as it is, where the basic idea is that red states and blue states hate each other so much that they should just, the red states should form one country and the blue states should form another country. I don't think that that's a good idea.

I don't think it's, the decision to secede shouldn't be a matter of what color your political alliances are.

[Speaker 2] (12:23 - 12:48)

Let's use some good examples. Northern California has a large red contingent and Austin and Texas has a large blue contingent in some certain areas. There would be some very challenging time for many people ahead if that were to be the case.

It does make sense to stay together, but we do have to want it, right? The will to do it. Are you registered libertarian by any chance?

[Speaker 1] (12:48 - 12:55)

Oh, yes, I am. As a matter of fact, I am the libertarian candidate for governor of New Hampshire. Oh, excellent.

[Speaker 2] (12:55 - 12:56)

So you will be on the ballot then?

[Speaker 1] (12:57 - 13:04)

I'm, there's a ballot access drive in progress and assuming it goes properly, yes, I will be on the ballot.

[Speaker 2] (13:05 - 13:12)

Excellent. Were you able to make the convention this weekend? Yes, I was.

Oh, excellent. Can we talk about what happened here? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (13:12 - 13:13)

What happened?

[Speaker 2] (13:14 - 13:29)

Let us talk because I watched the whole thing online. Okay, I'm going to give you my unbiased biasness. Somehow I was able to reach out to Dr. Recktenwald in December. I think it was mid-December of last year.

[Speaker 1] (13:29 - 13:31)

Oh, yeah. He was on your podcast. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (13:32 - 14:36)

Yes. So he was gracious enough to give me that time. And I'm going to be honest, I've been a little soured on politics just a little bit recently.

Obviously, we've seen what's happened. I actually left the Republicans during the Martha McSally, Kyrsten Sinema advertisement. It just got so dirty and ugly.

I just walked away. I just walked away. And I'm a no political party now.

So then I joined the libertarians and then stepped away again. But I'm very much, if I'm aligned with anyone, I'm more aligned with libertarians, at least until this weekend. So I watched the whole thing online.

So I will say when I spoke with Dr. Recktenwald, you can agree or disagree with the person, but the man comes from experience of another side and understands what the perils and pitfalls are. And I find him at least to have principle. Okay.

And he's a pretty honest actor. So I'd love to hear what you have to say. That's my initial input because I'm open enough to listen and hear different points of view.

I just want to tell you I do have a bias going in. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (14:36 - 15:10)

So yes, let me say I would have been happy with any of the candidates. Recktenwald, sure, he's fine. Mike Termat, he's fine.

Chase Oliver, I seem to be the only one in New Hampshire who does not hate him with a passion. So yeah, he's made some questionable decisions. His tweets about COVID handling were disturbing to say the least.

But he's very strong on anti-war, which is a big deal with me.

[Speaker 2] (15:12 - 15:18)

That's the thing Dave Smith really leaned into, at least if we can lead with that, right? At least lead with our strong point.

[Speaker 1] (15:20 - 15:59)

And as long as he is running on the Libertarian... Chase Oliver is not the reason that I'm a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. Mike Termat is not, Recktenwald is not.

The reason I is the platform. The platform, the preamble and it's the party of principle and they list the principles and those principles have not changed in 50 years. And they say, we challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.

The state is not all powerful. Sometimes it screws up and they should do a little bit less. That is what turns me on.

That is why I'm a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.

[Speaker 2] (15:59 - 16:07)

You're a Libertarian for you, right? Let's be honest. Is there really a party for a Libertarian?

It's almost contradictory in its statement.

[Speaker 1] (16:07 - 16:28)

The way I look at it is if they have a website where they're posting this platform and anybody who says, okay, there's this Chase Oliver guy running. I don't know much about him, but he says he's Libertarian. Let's go to lp.org, look at the platform. And there it is. We challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. Just the fact that somebody might read that is reason enough to like himself.

[Speaker 2] (16:29 - 16:38)

Right. And I will give, I mean, absolutely where I will give the credit is the work was put in. Yeah.

So whatever happened there now, were you there during the voting? Because I watched that.

[Speaker 1] (16:38 - 16:39)

Yes. Yes. I was alive.

[Speaker 2] (16:40 - 16:45)

Did you sense any kind of politics over principles at all during any of that?

[Speaker 1] (16:45 - 17:12)

I mean, obviously politics, but I was very surprised. Maybe I've just been out of it and I just didn't realize, but I was surprised at the level of hatred there is towards Chase within New Hampshire and I guess within the Mises Caucus. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was expecting, you know, it's too bad, but we'll go with him.

But no, they just hate him. They're saying they'd rather vote for Trump.

[Speaker 2] (17:13 - 17:15)

Yeah. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (17:15 - 17:19)

Yeah. They were saying they'd rather vote for Trump, which yeah.

[Speaker 2] (17:20 - 18:14)

Yeah. I mean, Trump's not the savior. He's another politician like the other senators now.

So let me ask you this, if I may, and this is where I, when I watched it live and I watched round four, you know, one through five and then six happen. And then I saw an interview with, with rack and he walked off, makes sense that he didn't want to interfere with the, with the end vote there with the note, you know, versus none of the above that went through. But then that's when I sensed that trap, because when there was a motion put on the floor for the president to allow, to pick their nominee, you know, pick their own vice president, I knew something was afoot there.

That was a little, that was a little, that didn't leave a good taste in my mouth as a spectator of trying to watch some people with principle. And once again, these are constructive criticisms. These are not, these are not to walk away.

So what are your thoughts about anything like that?

[Speaker 1] (18:14 - 18:54)

Anything? Yeah. It's well, I'll tell you this.

I was sitting in, I wasn't actually a delegate. So I was sitting sort of just behind the delegate alley, the peanut gallery, you might say. And at one point it was just after it was all over, Mike Turmont came by and started shaking people's hands.

And then a bunch of his, apparently people who used to be his supporters came by and got into a heated argument. And they said, you know, thanks for stabbing us in the back there with his announcement that he would accept the, Chase Oliver VP. And that was my first clue that people were really passionately hating Chase Oliver.

So.

[Speaker 2] (18:55 - 19:46)

Yeah. Well, there was something afoot, but I don't want to get, once again, this isn't to drag anything down or anything that's going to play out the way it does. Congratulations to the people who won, you know, people we supported.

I will say this, this movement that Angela had started and Dave, we know Dave Smith is a huge part of it. You know, absolutely. He took, he took the, he took the blame for the, for the big L.

And that's just, I just want to be clear. It was not Dave that, that let anyone down. Dave, Dave lifted it up because he got my eyes on it.

I wouldn't be paying attention if he hadn't been talking about it. Wouldn't have talked to Rex. So I will say that Angela did a great job.

Congratulations to her being reelected. I hope, I hope I have the honor of speaking with her in the future. So yeah, cool.

So if you have any other takeaways about that, the convention, that'd be great to share with, with her to help.

[Speaker 1] (19:47 - 19:57)

I was very impressed with Spike Cohen. He, I mean, I, I just hadn't heard him speak, but he's a very eloquent speaker and just seems like a really good guy all around.

[Speaker 2] (19:58 - 20:38)

So, and he ran for vice president four years ago, correct? I think so. I think he was on the vice, now he was with Joe Jorgensen.

So, and if I on Spike's behalf, have you seen, you have not seen the gun debate with he and David Hogg yet? Oh, I I've heard about it, but I haven't actually seen it. Okay.

If you get a chance, that Spike is brilliant in that. Absolutely brilliant. And the same thing that once again, I'm, you know, I'm, I'm just kind of flirting in the edges of talking to everybody.

So thank you so much for offering your time as well. And I'm really grateful. What, what else would you like to share about anything?

Any other topics or anything else you'd like to talk about?

[Speaker 1] (20:39 - 21:36)

Okay. Well, there's some, I sort of get into the theory in this club 75 alliance. It's not just a, Hey, let's all move to New Hampshire.

We talk about what it is about income tax. That's so abstractly different from other taxes. It's so, as I said, there's this guy, Frank Shutteroff back in 1954, wrote this book, income tax, the root of all evil.

And that explains it in sort of concrete terms, you know, this is what you get and so on. But I talk about how it's, it is an example of something called tyranny of the majority, where the majority is using the, the democratic process to benefit themselves at the expense of a minority. And that's really what's going on with, and that income tax does that much more so than any other tax.

And that's why we're trying to get rid of it or to opt out of it.

[Speaker 2] (21:37 - 21:46)

Yeah. I question about that versus working within the federal system to change that. Is it just too much of a moving beast to do that?

[Speaker 1] (21:46 - 22:02)

Well, again, obviously Ron Paul tried for many, many years to eliminate the federal income tax and he was unsuccessful. And the point I'm making is the reason for that is that the majority benefit from income tax. So they're, they're not going to go for that.

[Speaker 2] (22:03 - 22:29)

Yeah, I mean, what is it about Rome? It's something about paying for your vote, right? I mean, let's be honest, how many, how many, how much student debt has now been written off?

Like another a hundred thousand students got written off a couple of weeks ago. And it's, it's a slippery slope. It's just like, you're, why are you, what you're, I don't know.

It just doesn't, the government seems to create the problems that it tries to solve and then solves the problems and then creates, you know.

[Speaker 1] (22:29 - 22:44)

But the other thing I try to, the point I try to make in the club 75 alliance is it's not about blame. I'm not saying people are evil. This, this whole tyranny of the majority thing, it sounds like it's judgmental, but I don't mean it to be.

It's, it's just like.

[Speaker 2] (22:44 - 22:45)

I mean, we're part of the cog too, right?

[Speaker 1] (22:45 - 22:46)

Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (22:46 - 22:51)

The banality of evil is still banality. It's like some people literally do not understand or know.

[Speaker 1] (22:51 - 22:51)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (22:51 - 22:53)

Know that are part of it, that are part of it, right?

[Speaker 1] (22:54 - 23:10)

It's just human nature to vote for something that's going to benefit you. And you don't really think too hard about, well, there's this minority that's getting the shaft. Oh, well, you know, I'm getting a good thing, so I'll vote for it.

That's just human nature. So what else?

[Speaker 2] (23:11 - 23:26)

Can I ask you this? What if the government kind of says, okay, no more federal income tax. Would there be like a use, some kind of use tax or that would work that would be, I don't know what the term is.

I hate to use equitable because it's like a woke world now, right?

[Speaker 1] (23:26 - 23:27)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (23:27 - 23:30)

Well, you know, there's this air tax.

[Speaker 1] (23:30 - 23:43)

Yeah, yeah. You just said that fair tax, there is a, are you familiar with the fair tax? It's a, it's, if you go to, I think it's fairtax.org, they're proposing replacing the federal income tax with essentially a nationwide sales tax.

[Speaker 2] (23:44 - 23:49)

Right. Okay. That's good to understand.

So the more you buy, the more you contribute to the, to the.

[Speaker 1] (23:49 - 24:18)

Right. Yeah. And there's a, and to make it at least a little bit progressive, they're, they're proposing to have a, I think they call it a prebate.

You just get a bunch of money, a fixed amount of money at the beginning of the year. And so if you, if your total sales tax comes out to less than that, then you're, you're coming out ahead and you're basically getting some free money.

[Speaker 2] (24:18 - 24:47)

There's a lot of different thoughts. Yeah. Yeah.

There's, I mean, there's pro there's challenges because once again, you talk about help benefiting people and people who have to pay the same are not going to benefit. And that's a, that's kind of a hard sell too, right? Like really, if you think about it, so interesting.

Okay. Yeah. So do you have any, in the literature, when you share your philosophies, do you have any like, you know, three minute philosophy that you can share with us about the, besides, you know, what you've shared so far with the, with the statistics and everything?

[Speaker 1] (24:47 - 27:05)

One of the problems with this is that there's no quick elevator pitch. You know, there's no, there's no easy way to describe what the club 75 Alliance is doing other than just to say, income tax is a very, very different. And if you look at it a certain way, evil tax, not anyone's fault, but just, it is, it's, it's bad.

And we're trying to do something about it in a, in a way that doesn't assign blame. We're just trying to opt out of it. That's really, yes.

We can talk a little bit about secession because I do. Absolutely. You know, secession, at least until a few years ago was totally taboo, dirty word.

You couldn't talk about it. It's, it's getting to be less and less taboo now. And I am actually proposing, in fact, at Freedom Fest, I'm going to be giving, be giving a talk, which I'm going to call asking nicely for secession to say the right way to go about secession, instead of saying, we're declaring independence and you know, you're, you're evil.

And that's why we're declaring independence. And who dare you to send in the troops? That's, that's a recipe for civil war.

So I'm proposing that we just ask nicely, just say, hey, this is what we want. It's reasonable that we want it. And also, instead of directing this to the federal government, because they're going to just say, they're just going to ignore it, to actually direct the campaign to the American people and just say, please let us go.

It's the right thing to do. It's the civilized thing to do. What I want to emphasize is consent of the governed, which is supposed to be what makes America different from other countries.

You know, we govern based on consent of the governed. And when there's a state like New Hampshire, where the federal government no longer has the consent of the governed, then we're going to argue it's uncivilized to continue governing there. And we can point to other countries that have essentially agreed with this, you know, in Canada, the, the province of Quebec, about 20 years ago, maybe more, they almost, they had an independence referendum that almost got 50%.

And it scared them so much that they, the Canadian Supreme Court weighed in on whether it was legal to do that.

[Speaker 2] (27:05 - 27:07)

And they- You're talking about Quebec, right? Quebec.

[Speaker 1] (27:07 - 27:08)

Quebec.

[Speaker 2] (27:08 - 27:09)

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (27:10 - 27:44)

The, the Canadian Supreme Court said, well, it's not legal. But if they were to have a referendum where they actually got more than 50%, then it would be, they basically said it would be uncivilized to put them down. They, that they, the Canadian federal, federal government would have a moral obligation to begin negotiating in good faith.

So that's, that's comforting. And the UK has essentially said the same thing regarding Scotland secession.

[Speaker 2] (27:44 - 28:10)

Until you leave. Because I'm looking at how we treat the Middle East and how we treat countries we don't even own. Imagine a bad, imagine a breakup.

Yeah, yeah. You think the United States wants to let us go. You know, that's, that's the only concern about the secession part other than the idea of it, right?

The idea is such a sound idea and it makes sense, you know, but look at what Lincoln had, look at what Lincoln did.

[Speaker 1] (28:10 - 28:11)

Right.

[Speaker 2] (28:11 - 28:17)

Look at what they, what, what freedoms and liberties were suspended during the time to keep the union together.

[Speaker 1] (28:18 - 28:25)

And again, my, my view is they, the problem was they did it unilaterally. They, if they had asked nicely.

[Speaker 2] (28:26 - 28:59)

You're going to be at Freedom Fest, correct? Yes, I am. Okay, excellent.

So everyone log on to freedomfest.com, use code conscious 50, get $50 off the current package. Come meet us there. We will, we'll hang out.

So I hope to see your lecture. That'd be great. Hopefully we can meet there.

I'll be walking around with, I'm kind of a solo person walking around with a bunch of stuff. So hopefully we're able to make it work. But Stephen, it was so great to meet you.

Thank you so much. Stephen, would you like to share all your social media pieces, all your internet and all the ways to contact you?

[Speaker 1] (28:59 - 29:16)

Okay. The main thing is the website club75alliance.com. You can also just look for I'm on Facebook.

I'm on Twitter, but I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter. I spend a lot more time on Facebook. I guess I'm old school.

[Speaker 2] (29:17 - 29:36)

Yeah, it's, they are two very different medium. And I can tell you, I'm starting to flirt with the Twitter space and it is for someone of my same thing of the Facebook era. I'm actually a Myspace person myself.

Yeah. So from that era, I am very much behind the times and I'm trying to tread water as much as I can.

[Speaker 1] (29:37 - 29:37)

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (29:37 - 30:38)

But Stephen, thank you so much. Club 75 project, correct? Club 75 Alliance.

Yes. Oh, club. I apologize.

Club 75 Alliance. So excellent. Once again, it's for income $75,000 or more to move to New Hampshire and then work on legislation to secede from the United States.

Is that correct? That's right. Excellent.

Do you have any final words, anything else you'd like to share? That's it for me. Excellent.

Thank you so much. It was a great talking to you and have a great time. We'll talk, we'll talk soon.

Okay. Okay, cool. Take care.

Thank you again. Bye.