So my effort is of multidimensional interest. One: I want to prove to the whole world that we are saving the Constitution of America against the Americans; that the Constitution of America has to be saved, not only from the Soviet Union, but from Americans too. And they are the most dangerous enemies, because the Constitution is in their hands. They had not been challenged up to now because nobody had ever thought that they were against the Constitution. Others were as asleep as they were. Now they are fighting a battle which is unique in history.

So, when we can use their own Constitution, their own laws to defeat them, why should we lose that opportunity? We will win, and we will make the whole world aware that Americans are not doing what they say, that they are doing just the opposite. We are going to expose them to the whole world – that this is a hypocrisy, not democracy. And we want it to become a democracy.

Our victory is absolutely certain unless they burn their Constitution and declare America a fascist state. In that way also we will be the winners: we will have exposed the greatest hypocrisy in the whole history of man.

Secondly, the moment we win many of the politicians who are intelligent enough will immediately have a change of heart. They will see that now it is not a question of the red people winning, it is a question that the red people have proved they are for the Constitution, “And we have fallen into the opposite camp. It is good to be back with the Constitution,” because the American masses will not forgive anybody who is destroying their Constitution. While winning in the courts on the basis of democratic ideals and values, we will be able to convince the masses, too, that we are not enemies, that we are their friends, and that the people they used to think of as their friends are their enemies. So the politicians who are intelligent enough will be immediately on our side. Only the idiots will not change, but they don’t matter; they will lose their respectability on each standpoint.

For example, the attorney general of Oregon imposed a six hundred thousand dollar fine for making tents without permission. He never came here. He simply assumed from rumors that those tents were permanent structures – only permanent structures need permission, tents don’t. Of course, they were a new kind of tent. We had used material which is used in permanent structures, but nowhere in the American Constitution does it say that the material which is used in permanent structures cannot be used in tents. The definition of a tent is that you can put it up within ten minutes and you can fold it away within ten minutes. More than that, there is no constitutional way to define a tent. Of what it is made does not matter. It may be made of steel, that does not matter. The question is that it can be folded up within ten minutes.

So, I told my people, “Don’t argue, simply take a tent to the court. There is no need for any argument. Just ask permission to put up the tent which is in question, and the judges and the jury can decide whether it is a tent or a permanent structure. If it is a permanent structure then we are punishable, but if it is not, then to put such a big fine – six hundred thousand dollars – without any inquiry, without any inspection, without anything, is absolutely undemocratic.