FactualNewsandInterviews

MUST SEE PLEASE SHARE Mosab Yousef (son of Hamas founder) explains it all

MUST WATCH Eva Vlaardingerbroek Full speech CPAC Hungary APRIL 2024

History of Palestine Israel - Excellent information

Excellent outline of the dangers of WEF

MUST SEE! UK’s Winston Marshall Gives Nancy Pelosi a Proper Spanking at Oxford Union – Calls Out Joe Biden’s Dementia – Nasty Nancy FINALLY Receives the Public Humiliation She Deserves! Fell Transcript Below Nancy Pelosi and her husband took a break from their insider trading to attend a public debate at the Oxford Union in Oxford, England. The Oxford Union is a highly esteemed debating society and is one of Britain’s oldest university unions founded in 1823. Nancy and Robert Pelosi attended the Oxford Union debate on April 25 on populism hours after she was interrupted by pro-Gaza protesters from Youth Demand who support Gaza militants and want to put an end to fossil fuels. It was during this debate that Pelosi was finally given the proper public thrashing she deserved by one of Britain’s rising stars, Winston Marshall. Winston Marshall is a popular writer, musician and podcaster. Marshall was part of the British folk rock group Mumford and Sons where he was lead guitarist and won a Grammy and two Brit Awards. Marshall was forced out of the band after posting a tweet saying journalist Andy Ngo was “brave” for his book which says far-left activists have “radical plans to destroy democracy”. Winston Marshall participated in the debate on populism and its perceived threat by the global elites. During his speech Pelosi rudely interrupted the brilliant young mind to argue that the violent and costly month-long protests and attacks on the City of Portland were not as devastating as the Jan. 6 protests and riot. We now know that Nancy Pelosi was largely responsible for the violence that day. She refused to sign off on President Trump’s order days before the protests to bring in the National Guard to Washington DC. Pelosi and military leaders then refused to bring in the National Guard on January 6th until past 5 PM. Instead, Pelosi bizarrely organized a film crew to come in and follow her around that day. Pelosi’s rude interruption did not stop Winston Marshall from giving her a proper public thrashing. This will be the best video you watch all week! Here is the transcript: Introduction: Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. I now look to Mr. Winston Marshall to close the case for the opposition. Winstson Marshall: Ladies and gentlemen, words have a tendency to change meaning. When I was a boy, woman meant someone who didn’t have a cock. Populism has become a word used synonymously with racist, we’ve heard ethnonationalist, we’ve bigot, with hillbilly, red neck, with deplorables. Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people. This is a recent change, not Not long ago, Barack Obama, while still President at the North America’s Leaders Summit in June 2016, he took umbrage of the notion that Trump be called a populist. How could Trump be called a populist? He doesn’t care about working people. If anything, Obama argued he was the populist. If anything, Obama argued Bernie was the populist. It was Bernie who’d spent five decades fighting for working people. But with Trump… Something curious happens. If you watch Obama’s speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word populist interchangeably with strong man, with authoritarian. The word changes meaning it becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur. To me, populism is not a dirty word. Since the 2008 crash, and specifically the trillion dollar Wall Street bailout, we are in the populist age. And for good reason, the elites have failed. Let me address some common fallacies, some of which have been made tonight. If the motion was that demagoguery was a threat to democracy, I would be on that side of the If the motion was that political violence was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the House. January sixth has been mentioned, a dark day for America indeed. I’m sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June 2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, was under siege and under insurrection by radical progressives, those two were dark days for America. Yes? Nancy Pelosi: It’s not. There is no equivalence there. It is not like what happened on January 6th which was an insurrection… Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. It’s fine. You don’t agree… Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. But you’ll condemn those days. My point, though, is that all political movements are susceptible to violence and indeed, insurrection. And if we were arguing that fascism was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the house. Indeed, the current populist age is a movement against fascism. I’ve got quite a lot to get through. Populism, as you know, is the politics of the ordinary people against an elite. Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. And why else have universal suffrage if not to keep elites in check? Ladies and gentlemen, given the success of Trump, and more recently, Javier Mallet taking a chainsaw to the state behemoth of Argentina’s bureaucratic monster, you’d be mistaken for thinking this was a right wing populist age. But that would be ignoring Occupy Wall Street. That would be ignoring Jeremy Corbin’s For the Many, Not the Few. That would be ignoring Bernie against the Billionaires, RFK Jr. Against Big Pharma, and more recently, George Galloway against his better judgment. Now, all of them, including Galloway, recognize genuine concerns of ordinary people being otherwise ignored by the establishment. I’m actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-establishment. Today, particularly in America, the globalist left have become the establishment. I suppose for Ms. Pelosi to have taken this side of the motion, she’d be arguing herself out of a job. But it’s here in Britain where right and left populists united for the Supreme Act of democracy, Brexit. Polls have shown the number one reason people voted for Brexit was sovereignty for more democracy. Thank you. What was the response of the Brussels elite? They did everything in their power to undermine the democratic will of the British people, and the Westminster elite were just as disgraceful. As we’ve heard, David Cameron called the voters Fruitcakes, Loonies, and Closet Racists. The liberal Democrats did everything they could to overturn a democratic vote. Kirstama(?) campaigned for a second referendum. Elites would have us voting and voting and voting until we voted their way. Indeed, that’s what happened in Ireland and in Denmark. Let’s look at some of the other populist movements. The Hong Konger populist Revolt is literally called the Pro-Democracy Movement. The Pharma Revolt, from Netherlands to Germany, France, Greece to Sri Lanka, are taking their tractors to the road to protest ESG policy that’s floated down to us from those all-knowing infallible elites of Davos. The trucker movement in Canada became anti-elitist when petty tyrant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze their bank accounts, not the behavior of a democratic head of state. The gilets jaunes in France, Ulez in London, working people, protesting policy that hurt them. And how are they treated? They’re called conspiracy theorists. They’re called far-right by the mayor as well. Ladies and gentlemen, populism is the voice of the voiceless. The real threat to democracy is from the elites. Now, don’t get me wrong, we need elites. If-when President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run the countries. When the President has severe dementia, it’s not just America that crumbles, the whole world burns. But let’s examine the elites. European corporations spend over €1 billion a year lobbying Brussels. Us corporations spend over €2 billion a year lobbying in DC. Two-thirds of Congress receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer alone spent €11 million in 2021. They made over $10 billion in profit. No wonder then that 66% of Americans think the economy is rigged against them for the rich and the powerful. And by the way, we used to have a word for when big business and big government were in cahoots. Let Let me read you some mainstream media headlines. The New Yorker the day before the 2016 election, “The Case Against Democracy.” The Washington Post, the day after the election, “The problem with our government is democracy.” The LA Times, June 2017, “The British election is a reminder of the perils of too much democracy.” Vox, June 2017. “The two eminent political scientists say the problem with democracy is voters.” New York Times, June 2017. “The problem with participatory democracy is the participants.” Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don’t just disdain populism, they disdain the people. If the Democrats had put half their energy into delivering for the people, Trump wouldn’t even have a chance in 2024. He shouldn’t He shouldn’t have a chance. You’ve had power for four years. From the fabricated Steele Dossier to trying to take him off the ballot in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the anti-Democrat Party. All we need now is the Republicans to come out as the Promonicist Party. Ladies and gentlemen, populism is not a threat to democracy, but I’ll tell you what is. It’s elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It’s police shutting down dissenters, be it anti-monicists in this country or gender critical voices here, or last week in Brussels, the National Conservatives Movement. I’ll tell you what is a threat to democracy. It’s Brussels, DC, Westminster, the mainstream media, big tech, big pharma, corporate collusion, and the Davos cronies. The threat to democracy comes from those who write off ordinary people as deplorable. The threat to democracy comes from those who smear working people as racist. The threat to democracy comes from those who write off working people as populists. And I’ll say one last thing. This populist age can be brought to an end at the snap of a finger. All that needs to be done is for elites to start listening to, respect it, respecting, and, God forbid, working for ordinary people. Thank you.

May 2024 Sky News blasts Biden for betraying Israel

Marketplace monopoly of Amazon

This is really well done.

Outlines the Biden crime family

Climate The Movie (The Cold Truth) MUST WATCH and PLEASE SHARE WITH EVERYONE The film that lifts the lid on the climate alarm, and the dark forces behind the climate consensus. Written and directed by Martin Durkin. Produced by Tom Nelson.

Interview with Jennifer Boyd (sister of Patti Boyd) and Remembering Eric Carmen

@mikebenzcyber If you want to learn EXACTLY what is happening in the U.S. government and around the world - LISTEN to MIKE BENZ - he outlines ALL of it perfectly. You will not have any questions about how the SHADOW GOVERNMENT works after watching this entire video (with CC) https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/ https://rumble.com/v4jgv6x-twins-pod-episode-4-mike-benz.html

This is an incredible film that the very gracious David Clements shares with the world for free. He wants us all to download and share with everyone we can. What a generous, knowledgeable, well documented and detailed story that desperately needs to be known worldwide. God Bless David Clements, Donald Trump and the United States.

This explains in minute detail how "our" government has been hijacked by the deep state. If you want to know EXACTLY how this has happened, just watch and take notes. Below is the entire transcript: 00:00:10] The defining fact of the United States is freedom of speech. To the extent this country is actually exceptional, it's because we have the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. We have freedom of conscience. We can say what we really think. There's no hate speech exception to that. Just because you hate what somebody else thinks, you cannot force that person to be quiet, because we're citizens, not slaves. But that right, that foundational right that makes this country what it is, that right from which all other rights flow, is going away at high speed in the face of censorship. Now, modern censorship bears no resemblance to previous censorship regimes in previous countries, in previous eras. Our censorship is affected on the basis of fights against disinformation and malinformation. And the key thing to know about these is they're everywhere. And of course, they have no reference at all to whether what you're saying is true or not. In other words, you can say something that is factually accurate and consistent with your own conscience. And in previous versions of America, you would have an absolute right to say those things. But because someone doesn't like them, or because they're inconvenient to whatever plan the people in power have, they can be denounced as disinformation. [00:01:26] And you could be stripped of your right to express them, either in person or online. In fact, expressing these things can become a criminal act. And is. And it's important to know, by the way, that this is not just the private sector doing this. These efforts are being directed by the US government, which you pay for and least theoretically own. It's your government, but they're stripping your rights at very high speed. Most people understand this intuitively, but they don't know how it happens. How does censorship happen? What are the mechanics of it? Mike Benz is, we can say with some confidence, the expert in the world on how this happens. Mike Benz had the cyber portfolio at the State Department. He's now executive director of foundation for Freedom online. And we're going to have a conversation with him about a very specific kind of censorship. By the way, we can't recommend strongly enough if you want to know how this happens, Mike Benz. Benz is the man to read. But today, we just want to talk about a specific kind of censorship, and that's censorship that emanates from the fabled military industrial complex, from our defense industry and the foreign policy establishment in Washington. [00:02:33] That's significant now because we're on the cusp of a global war. And so you can expect censorship to increase dramatically. And so with that, here is Mike Benz, executive director of foundation for Freedom Online. Mike, thanks so much for joining us. And I just can't overstate to our audience how exhaustive and comprehensive your knowledge is on this topic. It's almost unbelievable. And so if you could just walk us through how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors and DoD and just the whole cluster, the constellation of defense related, publicly funded institutions stripped from us our freedom of. [00:03:10] You know, one of the easiest ways to actually start the story is really with the story of Internet freedom and its switch from Internet freedom to Internet censorship. Because free speech on the Internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the outset of the privatization of the Internet in 1991, we quickly discovered through the efforts of the Defense Department, the State Department, and our intelligence services that people were using the Internet to congregate on blogs and forums. And free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department, and our sort of CIA cutout ngo blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world in order to help them overthrow authoritarian governments, as they were sort of billed, essentially, the Internet free speech allowed kind of Insta regime change operations to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishment's state Department agenda. Google is a great example of this. Google began as a DARPA grant by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs, and they got their funding as part of a joint CIA NSA program to chart how, quote, birds of a feather flock together online through search engine aggregation. [00:04:36] And then one year later, they launched Google and then became a military contractor. Quickly thereafter, they got Google Maps by purchasing a CIA satellite software, essentially, and the ability to track to use free speech on the Internet as a way to circumvent state control over media, over in places like Central Asia or all around the world, was seen as a way to be able to do what used to be done out of CIA station houses or out of embassies or consulates in a way that was totally turbocharged. And all of the Internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state vpns, virtual private networks to hide your ip address tor the dark web, to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously, end to end encrypted chats. All these things were created initially as DARPA projects or as joint CIA NSA projects to be able to help intelligence backed groups to overthrow governments that were causing a problem to the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama administration. And this plan worked magically from about 1991 until about 2014, when there began to be an about face on Internet freedom and its utility. [00:05:57] Now, the high watermark of the sort of Internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in 2011 2012, when you had this one by one, all of the adversary governments of the Obama administration, Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions. And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online. During those periods, there was a famous phone call from Google's Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter to win that election. So free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all the ngos, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established for freedom. In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbass broke away. And they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary Chance, which was the Crimea annexation vote in 2014. [00:07:12] And when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the Internet. In the eyes of NATO as they saw it, the fundamental nature of war changed at that moment. And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Durasimov doctrine, which is named after this russian military general who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed. You don't need to win military skirmishes to take over central and eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem, because that's what controls elections. And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it's infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media. An industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the british Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit. Essentially infrastructure that was created, initially stationed in Germany and in central and eastern Europe, to create psychological buffer zones. Basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies, to censor russian propaganda or to censor domestic right wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis. [00:08:41] So you had the systematic targeting by our State department, by our IC, by the Pentagon, of groups like Germany's AfD, the alternative for Deutschland there, and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now, when Brexit happened in 2016. That was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn't have to worry just about central and eastern Europe anymore. It was coming westward, this idea of russian control over hearts and minds. And so Brexit was June 2016. The very next month at the Warsaw conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. So they went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they were deemed to be russian proxies. And again, it's not just russian propaganda. These were now Brexit groups, or groups like Mateo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox party. And now, at the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia. It's losing domestic elections across Europe to all these right wing populist groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap russian energy at a time when the US was pressuring this energy diversification policy. [00:10:13] And so they made the argument after Brexit. Now the entire rules based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media, because Brexit would give rise to Brexit in France with Marine Le Pen, to spexit in Spain with the Vox party, to Italy. Exit in Italy to Gregson in Germany to Grexit in Greece. The EU would come apart, so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired. And then, not only that, now that NATO is gone, now there's no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, or the World bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the Internet, all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War II would collapse. So you can imagine. Wait. May I ask you to pause the 2016 election? [00:11:11] You just told a remarkable story that I've never heard anybody explain as lucidly and crisply as you just did. But did anyone at NATO or anyone at the State Department pause for a moment and say, wait a second, we've just identified our new enemy as democracy within our own countries? I think that's what you're saying. They feared that the people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way and they went to war against. [00:11:35] Now, there's a rich history of this dating back to the cold war. The cold war in Europe was essentially a similar struggle for hearts and minds of people, especially in central and Eastern Europe, in these sort of soviet buffer zones. And starting in 1948, the national security state was really established. Then. You had the 1947 act, which established the Central Intelligence Agency. You had this new world order that had been created with all these international institutions, and you had the 1948 UN declaration on Human Rights, which forbid the territorial acquisition by military force. So you can no longer run a traditional military occupation government in the way that we could in 1898, for example, when we took the Philippines, everything had to be done through a sort of political legitimization process whereby there's some ratification from the hearts and minds of people within the country. Now, often that involves simply puppet politicians who are groomed as emerging leaders by our state department. But the battle for hearts and minds had been something that we had been giving ourselves a long moral license leash, if you will, since 1948, one of the godfathers of the CIA, George Kennan. [00:12:55] Twelve days after we rigged the italian election in 1948 by stuffing ballot boxes and working with the mob, he published a memo called the inauguration of organized political warfare, where he said, listen, it's a mean old world out there. We at the CIA just rigged the italian election. We had to do it because if the communists won, maybe there'd never be another election in Italy again. But it's really effective, guys. We need a department of dirty tricks to be able to do this around the world. And it's essentially a new social contract we're constructing with the american people, because this is not the way we've conducted diplomacy before, but we are now forbidden from using the War department. 1948, they also renamed the War Department to the Defense department. So again, as part of this diplomatic onslaught for political control, rather than it looking like it's overt military control. But essentially what ended up happening there is we created this foreign domestic firewall. We said that we have a department of dirty tricks to be able to rig elections, to be able to control media, to be able to meddle in the internal affairs of every other plot of dirt in the country, but this sort of sacred dirt in which the american homeland sits, they are not allowed to operate there. [00:14:06] The State Department, the Defense department, the CIA are all expressly forbidden from operating on us soil. Of course, this is so far from the case, it's not even funny. But that's because of a number of laundering tricks that they've developed over 70 years of doing this. But essentially, there was no moral quandary at first with respect to the creation of the censorship industry. When it started out in Germany and in Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia and in Sweden and Finland. There began to be a more diplomatic debate about it after Brexit. And then it became full throttle when Trump was elected. And what little resistance there was washed over by the rise and saturation of Russiagate, which basically allowed them to not have to deal with the moral ambiguities of censoring your own people. Because if Trump was a russian asset, you no longer really had a traditional free speech issue. It was a national security issue. It was only after Russiagate died in July 2019 when Robert Mueller basically choked on the stand for 3 hours and revealed he had absolutely nothing, after two and a half years of investigation, that the foreign to domestic switcheroo took place. [00:15:22] Where they took all of this censorship architecture spanning DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the DoD, the DOJ, and then the thousands of government funded NGO and private sector mercenary firms were all basically transited from a foreign predicate, a russian disinformation predicate to a democracy predicate, by saying that disinformation is not just a threat when it comes from the Russians, it's actually an intrinsic threat to democracy itself. And so by that, they were able to launder the entire democracy promotion regime change toolkit just in time for the 2020 election. [00:16:02] It's almost beyond belief that this has happened. I mean, my own father worked for the US government in this business, in the information war against the Soviet Union, and was a big part of that. And the idea that any of those tools would be turned against american citizens by the US government, I think, I want to think, was absolutely unthinkable in, say, 1988. And you're saying that there really hasn't been anyone who's raised objections, and it's absolutely turned inward to manipulate and rig our own elections, as we would in, say, Latvia. [00:16:36] Yeah, well, as soon as the democracy predicate was established, you had this professional class of professional regime change artists and operatives. That is the same people who argued that we need to bring democracy to Yugoslavia, and that's the predicate for getting rid of milosevic or any other country around the world where we basically overthrow governments in order to preserve democracy. Well, if the democracy threat is homegrown now, then suddenly these people all have new jobs moving on the US side, and I can go through a million examples of that. But one thing on what you just mentioned, which is that from their perspective, they just weren't ready for the Internet. 2016 was really the first time that social media had reached such maturity that it began to eclipse legacy media. I mean, this was a long time coming. I think folks saw this building. From 2006 through 2016, Internet 1.0 didn't even have social media. From 1991 to 2004, there was no social media at all. 2004, Facebook came out. 2005, Twitter 2006, YouTube 2007, the smartphone. And in that initial period of social media, nobody was getting subscriberships at the level where they actually competed with legacy news media. [00:18:03] But over the course of being initially, even these dissident voices within the US, even though they may have been loud in moments, they never reached 30 million followers. They never reached a billion impressions a year. Type thing as an uncensored, mature ecosystem allowed citizen journalists and independent voices to be able to outcompete legacy news media. This induced a massive crisis both in our military and in our state department and intelligence services. I give a great example of this in 2019 at meeting of the German Marshall Fund, which is an institution that goes back to the US. Basically, I don't want to say bribe, but essentially the economic soft power projection in Europe as part of the reconstruction of european governments after World War II, to be able to essentially pay them with Marshall fund dollars and then in return they basically were under our thumb in terms of how they reconstructed. But the German Marshall fund held a meeting in 2019. They held a million of these, frankly, but where a four star general got up on the panel and said that what happens? He posed the question, what happens to the US military? What happens to the national security state when the New York Times is reduced to a medium sized Facebook page? [00:19:36] And he posed this thought experiment as an example of we've had these gatekeepers, we've had these bumper cars on democracy in the form of a century old relationship with legacy media institutions. I mean, our mainstream media is not in any shape or form, even from its outset, independent from the national security state, from the state Department, from the War Department. All of the initial broadcast news companies, NBC, ABC and CBS, were all created by Office of War Information Veterans from the War Department's effort in World War II. You had these operation Mockingbird relationships from the 1950s through the 1970s. Those continued through the use of the National Endowment for Democracy and the privatization of intelligence capacities in the 1980s under Reagan. There's all sorts of CIA reading room memos you can read even on CIA Gov about those continued media relations throughout the 1990s. And so you always had this backdoor relationship between the Washington Post, the New York Times and all of the major broadcast media corporations. By the way, Rupert Murdoch and Fox are part of this as well. Rupert Murdoch was actually part of the National Endowment for Democracy Coalition in 1983 when it was formed as a way to do CIA operations in an above board way, after the Democrats were so ticked off at the CIA for manipulating student movements in the 1970s. [00:21:08] But essentially, there was no CIA intermediary to random citizen journalist accounts. There was no Pentagon backstop. You couldn't get a story killed. You couldn't have this favors for favorites relationship. You couldn't promise access to some random person with 700,000 followers who's got an opinion on syrian gas. And so this induced, and this was not a problem for the initial period of social media from 2006 to 2014, because there were never dissident groups that were big enough to be able to have a maternity ecosystem on their own. And all of the victories on social media had gone in the way of where the money was, which was from the State Department and the Defense Department and the intelligence services. But then, as that maturity happened, you now had this situation after the 2016 election where they said, okay, now the entire international order might come undone. 70 years of unified foreign policy from Truman until Trump are now about to be broken. And we need the same analog control systems. We had to be able to put bumper cars on bad stories or bad political movements through legacy media relationships and contacts. We now need to establish and consolidate within the social media companies. [00:22:27] And the initial predicate for that was Russiagate. But then after Russiagate died and they used a simple democracy promotion predicate, then it gave rise to this multi billion dollar censorship industry that joins together the military industrial complex, the government, the private sector, the civil society organizations, and then this vast cobweb of media allies and professional fact checker groups that serve as this sort of sentinel class that surveys every word on the Internet. [00:22:59] America is on trial. Join me, Josh Hammer, as we examine the presidential election through the only lens that truly matters, the legal proceedings of Donald Trump and the Biden crime family. This new daily podcast examines breaking news and analyzes the biggest questions facing the country. Can the former president Donald Trump get a fair trial? Can Trump be disqualified from the ballot? Can Joe Biden pardon his son, Hunter? Can Trump even pardon himself? We cover all the action every morning. Listen to America on trial wherever you download your favorite. [00:23:35] Us. And thank you again for this almost unbelievable explanation of why this is happening. Can you give us an example of how it happens? And just pick one among, I know countless examples of how the national security state lies to the population, censors the truth in real. [00:23:56] So, you know, we have this State Department outfit called the Global Engagement center, which was created by a guy named Rick Stengel, who described himself as Obama's propagandist in chief. He was the undersecretary for public affairs, which is essentially the liaison office role between the State Department and the mainstream media. So this is basically the exact nexus where government talking points about war or about diplomacy or statecraft get synchronized with mainstream media. [00:24:27] May I add something to that? I know Rick Stengle. He was at one point a journalist. And Rick Stengel has made public arguments against the First Amendment and against free speech and some. [00:24:38] Oh, yeah, he wrote a whole book on it. And he published an op ed in 2019. He wrote a whole book on it. And he made the argument that we just went over here that essentially the constitution was not prepared for the Internet, and we need to get rid of the First Amendment accordingly. And he described himself as a free speech absolutist when he was the managing editor of Time magazine. And even when he was in the State Department under Obama, he started something called the Global Engagement center, which was the first government censorship operation within the federal government. But it was foreign facing, so it was okay. Now, at the time, they used the homegrown ISIS predicate threat for this. And so it was very hard to argue against the idea of the State Department having this formal coordination partnership with every major tech platform in the US, because at the time, there were these ISIS attacks. And we were told that ISIS was recruiting on Twitter and Facebook. And so the Global engagement Center was established essentially to be a state Department entanglement with the social media companies, to basically put bumper cars on their ability to platform accounts. [00:25:55] And one of the things they did is they created a new technology, which is called natural language processing. It is an artificial intelligence, machine learning ability to create meaning out of words in order to map everything that everyone says on the Internet and create this vast topography of how communities are organized online, who the major influences are, what they're talking about, what narratives are emerging or trending, and to be able to create this sort of network graph in order to know who to target and how information moves through an ecosystem. And so they began plotting the language, the prefixes, the suffixes, the popular terms, the slogans that ISIS folks were talking about on Twitter. When Trump won the election in 2016, everyone who worked at the State Department was expecting these promotions to the White House National Security Council under Hillary Clinton, who, I should remind viewers, was also secretary of state under Obama, actually ran the State Department. But these folks were all expecting promotions on November eigth 2016, and were unceremoniously put out of jobs by a guy who was a 20 to one underdog, according to the New York Times, the day of the election and when that happened, these State Department folks took their special set of skills, coercing governments for sanctions. [00:27:24] The State Department led the effort to sanction Russia over the Crimea annexation in 2014. These State Department diplomats did an international roadshow to pressure european governments to pass censorship laws to censor the right wing populist groups in Europe, and, as a boomerang impact, to censor populist groups who were affiliated in the US. So you had folks who went from the State Department directly, for example, to the Atlantic Council, which was this major facilitator between government to government censorship. The Atlantic Council is a group that is one of Biden's biggest political backers. They bill themselves as NATO's think tank, so they represent the political census of NATO. And in many respects, when NATO has civil society actions that they want to be coordinated to synchronize with military action in a region, the atlantic council essentially is deployed to consensus build and make that political action happen within a region of interest to NATO. Now, the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board. A lot of people don't even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on the board of a single organization. That's kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry. [00:28:42] They get annual funding from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy. The Atlantic Council, in January 2017 moved immediately to pressure european governments to pass censorship laws to create a transatlantic flank attack on free speech in exactly the way that Rick Stengel essentially called for, to have US mimic european censorship laws. One of the ways they did this was by getting Germany to pass something called NetsDG in August 2017, which was essentially kicked off the era of automated censorship in the US. What NetsGG required was unless social media platforms wanted to pay a $54 million fine for each instance of speech, each post left up on their platform for more than 48 hours that had been identified as hate speech, they would be fined basically into bankruptcy when you aggregate 54 million over tens of thousands of posts per day. And the safe haven around that was if they deployed artificial intelligence based censorship technologies, which had been again created by DARPA to take on ISIS, to be able to scan and ban speech automatically. And I call these weapons of mass deletion. These are essentially the ability to censor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code. [00:30:05] And the way this is done is by aggregating, basically, the field of censorship. Science fuses together two disparate groups of study, if you will. There's the sort of political and social scientists who are the sort of thought leaders of what should be censored. And then there are the sort of quants, if you will. These are the programmers, the computational data scientists, computational linguistics. Every university, there's over 60 universities now who get federal government grants to do this censorship, the censorship work and the censorship preparation work, where what they do is they create these codebooks of the language that people use, the same way they did for ISIS. They did this, for example, with COVID They created these Covid lexicons of what dissident groups were saying about mandates, about masks, about vaccines, about high profile individuals like Tony Fauci or Peter Dashik or any of these other protected vip individuals whose reputations had to be protected online. And they created these codebooks. They broke things down into narratives. The Atlanta Council, for example, was a part of this government funded consortium, something called the Virality Project, which mapped 66 different narratives that dissidents were talking about around Covid, everything from COVID origins to vaccine efficacy. [00:31:22] And then they broke down these 66 claims into all the different factual subclaims, and then they plugged these into these essentially machine learning models to be able to have a constant world heat map of what everybody was saying about COVID And whenever something started to trend that was bad for what the Pentagon wanted or was bad for what Tony Fauci wanted, they were able to take down tens of millions of posts. They did this in the 2020 election with mail in ballots. It was the same. [00:31:51] I'm sorry, there's so much here, and it's so shocking. So you're saying the Pentagon, our Pentagon, the US Department of Defense, censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle? [00:32:07] Yes. They did this through the two most censored events in human history, I would argue to date, are the 2020 election and the Covid-19 pandemic. And I'll explain how I arrived there. So the 2020 election was determined by mail in ballots. And I'm not weighing into the substance of whether mail in ballots were or were not a legitimate or safe and reliable form of voting. That's a completely independent topic, from my perspective, than the censorship issue one. But the censorship of mail in ballots is really one of the most extraordinary stories in our american history. I would argue what happened was you had this plot within the Department of Homeland Security. Now, this gets back to what we were talking about with the State Department's global engagement center. You had this group within the Atlanta Council and the Foreign Policy Establishment, which began arguing in 2017 for the need for a permanent domestic censorship government office to serve as a quarterback for what they called a whole of society counter misinformation, counter disinformation alliance. That just means censorship. The counter Misdisinfo. But their whole of society model explicitly proposed that we need every single asset within society to be mobilized in a whole of society effort to stop misinformation online. [00:33:31] It was that much of an existential threat to democracy. But they fixated in 2017 that it had to be centered within the government, because only the government would have the clout and the coercive threat powers and the perceived authority to be able to tell the social media companies what to do, to be able to summon a government funded NGO swarm to create that media surround sound, to be able to arm an astroturfed army of fact checkers, and to be able to liaise and connect all these different censorship industry actors into a cohesive, unified whole. And the Atlantic Council initially proposed with this blueprint called forward defense. It's not offense, it's forward defense, guys. They initially proposed that running this out of the State Department's global engagement center because they had so many assets there who were so effective at censorship under Rick Stengel's steed, under the Obama administration. But they said, oh, we're not going to be able to get away with that because we don't really have a national security predicate, and it's supposed to be foreign facing. We can't really use that hook unless we have a sort of national security one. Then they contemplated parking at the CIA, and they said, well, actually, there's two reasons we can't do that. [00:34:40] CIA is foreign facing. We can't really establish a counterintelligence threat to bring it home domestically. Also, we're going to need essentially tens of thousands of people involved in this operation, spanning this whole society model. You can't really run a clandestine operation that way. So they said, okay, well, what about the FBI? They said, well, the FBI would be great. It's domestic. But the problem is the FBI is supposed to be the intelligence arm of the Justice Department. And what we're dealing with here are not acts of law breaking. It's basically support for Trump. Or if a left wing populist had risen to power, like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, I have no doubt they would have done in the UK. They would have done the same thing to him there. They targeted Jeremy Corbyn. And other left wing populist NATO skeptical groups in Europe. But in the US, it was all Trump. And so essentially what they said is, well, the only other domestic intelligence equity we have in the US besides the FBI is the DHS. So we are going to essentially take the CIA's power to rig and bribe foreign media organizations, which is a power they've had since the day they were born in 1947. [00:35:42] And we're going to combine that with the power, with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI by putting it at DHS. So DHS was basically deputized. It was empowered through this obscure little cybersecurity agency to have the combined powers that the CIA has abroad with the jurisdiction of the FBI at home. And the way they did this, how did an obscure little cybersecurity agency get this power? Was they did a funny little series of Switcheroo's. So this little thing called CISA, they didn't call it the disinformation Governance board, they didn't call it the censorship agency. They gave it an obscure little name that no one would notice, called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who its founder said, we care about security so much, it's in our name twice. Everybody sort of closed their eyes and pretended that's what it was. But it was created by active Congress in 2018 because of the perceived threat that Russia had hacked the 2016 election, had physically hacked it. And so we needed the cybersecurity power to be able to deal with that. And essentially, on the heels of a CIA memo on January 6, 2017, and a same day, DHS executive order on January 6, 2017, arguing that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election and a DHS mandate, saying that elections are now critical infrastructure. [00:37:05] You had this new power within DHS to say that cybersecurity attacks on elections are now our purview. And then they did two cute things. One, they said misdis and mal information online are a form of cybersecurity attack. They are a cyber attack because they are happening online. And they said, well, actually, russian disinformation is we're actually protecting democracy and elections. We don't need a russian predicate after Russiagate died. So just like that, you had this cybersecurity agency be able to legally make the argument that your tweets about mail in ballots, if you undermine public faith and confidence in them as a legitimate form of voting, you were now conducting a attack on us critical infrastructure by articulating misinformation on Twitter. And just like that, now what they did then is they wait, so in. [00:38:02] Other words, complaining about election fraud is the same as taking down our power grid? [00:38:08] Yes. You could literally be on your toilet seat at 930 on a Thursday night and tweet, I think that mail in ballots are illegitimate. And you were essentially then caught up in the crosshairs of the Department of Homeland Security classifying you as conducting a cyber attack on us critical infrastructure because you were doing misinformation online in the cyber realm. And misinformation is a attack on democracy when it undermines public faith and confidence in our democratic elections and our democratic institutions. They would end up going far beyond that. They would actually define democratic institutions as being another thing that was a cybersecurity attack to undermine. And lo and behold, the mainstream media is considered a democratic institution that would come later. What ended up happening was in advance of the 2020 election, starting in April of 2020. Although this goes back before, you had this essentially never Trump neocon Republican DHS, working with essentially NATO on the national security side, and essentially the DNC, if you will, to use DHS as the launching point for a government coordinated mass censorship campaign spanning every single social media platform on earth in order to pre censor the ability to dispute the legitimacy of mail in ballots. [00:39:34] And here's how they did this. They aggregated four different institutions. Stanford University, the University of Washington, a company called Graphica, and the Atlantic Council. Now, all four of these institutions, the centers within them, were essentially Pentagon cutouts. You had at the Stanford Airnab Observatory. It was actually run by Michael McFall. If you know Michael McFall, he was the US ambassador to Russia under the Obama administration, and he personally authored a seven step playbook for how to successfully orchestrate a color revolution, that is. And part of that involved maintaining total control over media and social media, juicing up the civil society outfits, calling elections illegitimate in order to. Now, mind you, all of these people were professional Russia gators and professional election delegitimizers in 2016. And then. I'll get that in a sec. So Stanford University, nominally the Stanford Air Observatory under Michael McMcFall, was run by Alex Damos, who was formerly a Facebook executive who coordinated with Odni with respect to Russiagate, taking down russian propaganda at Facebook. So this is another liaison, essentially, to the national security state. And under Alex Damos at Stanford Observatory was Renee DiResta, who started her career in the CIA and wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on russian disinformation. [00:41:05] And there's a lot more there that I'll get to another time. But the next institution was the University of Washington, which is essentially the Bill Gates University in Seattle, who is headed by Kate Starbert, who is basically three generations of military brass who got her phd in crisis informatics, essentially doing social media surveillance for the Pentagon and getting DARPA funding and working essentially with the national security state, then repurposed to take on mail in ballots. The third firm, Graphica, got $7 million in Pentagon grants and got their start as part of the Pentagon's Minerva initiative. The Minerva initiative is the psychological warfare research center of the Pentagon. This group was doing social media spying and narrative mapping for the Pentagon until the 2016 election happened, and then were repurposed into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to censor 22 million Trump tweets, pro Trump tweets about mail in ballots. And then the fourth institution, as I mentioned, was the Atlantic Council, who's got seven CIA directors on the board. So one after another, it is exactly what Ben Rhodes described during the Obama era as the blob, the foreign policy establishment. It's the Defense Department, the State Department, or the CIA every single time. [00:42:26] And of course, this was because they were threatened by Trump's foreign policy. And so while much of the censorship looks like it's coming domestically, it's actually by our foreign facing department of dirty tricks color Revolution Blob, who are professional government topplers who were then basically descended on the 2020 election. Now, they did this, they explicitly said, the head of this election integrity partnership on tape, and my foundation clipped them, and it's been played before Congress, and it's a part of the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit now. But they explicitly said on tape that they were set up to do what the government was banned from doing itself. And then they articulated a multi step framework in order to coerce all the tech companies to take censorship actions. They said on tape, the tech companies would not have done but for their pressure, which involved using threats of government force. Because they were the deputized arm of the government, they had a formal partnership with the DHS. They were able to use DHS's proprietary domestic disinformation switchboard to immediately talk to top brass at all of the tech companies for takedowns. And they bragged on tape about how they got the tech companies to all systematically adopt a new terms of service speech violation ban called delegitimization, which meant any tweet, any YouTube video, any Facebook post, any TikTok video, any discord post, any Twitch video, anything on the Internet that undermined public faith and confidence in the use of mail, in ballots or early voting dropboxes or ballot tabulation issues on election day was a prima fascia terms of service violation policy under this new delegitimization policy that they only adopted because of pass through government pressure from the election integrity partnership, which they bragged about [00:44:17] on tape, including the grid that they used to do this, and simultaneously invoking threats of government breaking them up or government stopping doing favors for the tech companies, unless they did this, as well as inducing crisis pr by working with their media allies. And they said the government DHS could not do that themselves. And so they set up this basically constellation of State Department, Pentagon and IC networks to run this pre censorship campaign, which, by their own math, had 22 million tweets on Twitter alone. And mind you, they did this on 15 platforms. This is hundreds of millions of posts which were all scanned and banned or throttled so that they could not be amplified or they exist in a sort of limited state purgatory, or had these frictions affixed to them in the form of fact checking labels where you couldn't actually click through the thing, or it was an inconvenience to be able to share it. Now, they did this seven months before the election, because at the time, they were worried about the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a so called red mirage blue shift event. They knew the only way that Biden would be able to win, mathematically was through the disproportionate Democrat use of mail in ballots. [00:45:28] They knew there would be a crisis because it was going to look extremely weird if Trump looked like he won by seven states. And then three days later, it comes out actually the election switched. I mean, that would put the election crisis of the Bush Gore election on a level of steroids that the national security state said, well, the public will not be prepared for. So what we need to do is we need to, in advance, we need to pre censor the ability to even question legitimacy. This took out. [00:45:58] Wait, may I ask you to pause right there? So what you're saying is, what you're suggesting is they knew the outcome of the election seven months before it was held. [00:46:15] It looks very bad. [00:46:17] Certainly what they. Yes, Mike, it does look very. [00:46:23] Know. And especially when you combine this with the fact that this is right on the heels of the impeachment. The Pentagon led, CIA led impeachment. You know, it was Eric Cimerella from the CIA, and it was the Vinmins from the Pentagon who led the impeachment of Trump in late 2019 over an alleged phone call around withholding Ukraine aid. This same network, which came straight out of the Pentagon, hybrid warfare network, military censorship network, created after the first Ukraine crisis in 2014, were the lead architects of the Ukraine impeachment in 2019, and then essentially came back on steroids as part of the 2020 election censorship operation. But from their perspective, it certainly looks like the perfect crime. These were the people. DHS at the time had actually federalized much of the national election administration through this January 6, 2017 executive order from outgoing Obama DHS head Jed Johnson, which essentially wrapped all 50 states up into a formal DHS partnership. So DHS was simultaneously in charge of the administration of the election in many respects, and the censorship of anyone who challenged the administration of the election. This is like putting essentially the defendant of a trial as the judge and jury of the trial. [00:47:55] But you're not describing democracy. I mean, you're describing a country in which democracy is impossible. [00:48:00] What I'm essentially describing is military rule. What's happened with the rise of the censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. Democracy sort of draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is ruled by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it's not really being ruled by an overlord, because the government is actually just our will, expressed by our consent with who we vote for. The whole push after the 2016 election and after Brexit and after a couple of other social media run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the 2016 Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the Internet. And what they essentially said is, we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions. And who are the democratic institutions? Oh, it's us. It's the military, it's NATO, it's the IMF and the World bank. It's the mainstream media, it is the ngos. And of course, these ngos are largely state department funded or IC funded. [00:49:18] It's essentially all of the elite establishments that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy. Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you're left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the democrat institutions themselves. And from their perspective, that takes a lot of mean, the amount of work these people mean. For example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region, for the finance and the Morgan's and the blackrocks in a region, for the ngos in the region, for the media in the region. All of these need to reach a consensus. And that process takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation. From their perspective, that's democracy. Democracy is getting the ngos to agree with Blackrock, to agree with the Wall Street Journal, to agree with the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative. [00:50:30] That is the difficult vote building process. From their perspective, at the end of the day, a bunch of populist groups decide that they like a truck driver who's popular on TikTok more than the carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass. Well, then, from their perspective, that is now an attack on democracy. And this is what this whole branding effort was. And of course, democracy, again has that magic regime change predicate where democracy is our magic watchword. To be able to overthrow governments from the ground up in a sort of color revolution style whole of society effort to topple a democratically elected government from the inside. For example, as we did in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected by the ukrainian people. Like him or hate him, I'm not even issuing an opinion there. But the fact is we color revolutioned him out of office. We january 6 him out of office. Actually, to be frank. I mean, with respect to the. You had state department funded right sector thugs and $5 billion worth of civil society money pumped into this to overthrow a democratically elected government in the name of democracy. And they took that special set of skills home. [00:51:44] And now it's here, perhaps potentially, to stay. And this has fundamentally changed the nature of american governance because of the threat of one small voice becoming popular on social media. [00:51:58] May I ask a question? So into that group of institutions that you say now define democracy, the ngos, foreign policy establishment, et cetera, you included the mainstream media. Now, in 2021, the NSA broke into my private text apps and read them and then leaked them to the New York Times against me. That just happened again to me last week, and I'm wondering how common that is for the intel agencies to work with so called mainstream media like the New York Times to hurt their opponents. [00:52:37] Well, that is the function of these interstitial government funded non governmental organizations and think tanks. Like, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is NATO's think tank. But other groups like the Aspen Institute, which draws the lion's share of its funding from the State Department and other government agencies. The Aspen Institute was busted doing the same thing with the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. You had this strange situation where the FBI had advanced knowledge of the pending publication of the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then magically, the Aspen Institute, which is run by essentially former CIA, former NSA, former FBI, and then a bunch of sort of civil society organizations, all hold a mass stakeholder censorship simulation. A three day conference. This came out, yo, Roth was there. This is a big part of the Twitter file leaks, and it's been mentioned in multiple congressional investigations. But somehow the Aspen Institute, which is basically an addendum of the national security state, got the exact same information that the national security state spied on journalists and political figures to obtain, and not only leaked it, but then basically did a joint coordinated censorship simulator in September, 2 months before the election, in order, just like with the censorship of mail and ballots, to be in ready position to pre censor anyone online, amplifying, wait, a news story that had not even broken. [00:54:15] So, I mean, which is, by the way, I spent my life in Washington. Walter Isaacson, formerly of Time magazine, ran it, former president of CNN. I had no idea it was part of the national security state. I had no idea its funding came from the US government. This is the first time I've ever heard that. But given assuming what you're saying is true, it's a little weird that Walter Isaacson left aspens to write a biography of Elon Musk. Strange. [00:54:42] Or, you know, I don't know. I haven't read that book. From what I've heard from people, it's a relatively fair treatment, just total speculation. But I suspect that Walter Isaacson has struggled with this issue and may not even firmly fall in one particular place in the sense that Walter Eisenson did a series of interviews of Rick Stengel, actually with the Atlantic Council and in other settings where he interviewed Rick Stengel specifically on the issue of the need to get rid of the First Amendment and the threat that free speech on social media poses to democracy. Now, at the time, I was very concerned. This was between 2017 and 2019, when he did these Rick Stengle interviews, I was very concerned because Isaacson expressed what seemed to me to be a highly sympathetic view about the Rick Stangel perspective on killing the First Amendment. Now, he didn't formally endorse that position, but it left me very skittish about Isaacson. But what I should say is, at the time, I don't think very many people in fact, I know virtually nobody in the country had any idea how deep the rabbit hole went when it came to the construction of the censorship industry and how deep the tentacles had grown within the military and the national security state in order to buoy and consolidate it. [00:56:08] Much of that, frankly, did not even come to public light until even last year. Some of that was galvanized by Elon Musk's acquisition and the Twitter files and the republican turnover in the House that allowed these multiple investigations, the lawsuits like Missouri v. Biden and the discovery process there, and multiple other things like the disinformation governance board, who, by the way, the interim head of that. The head of that, Nina Jankovitz, got her start in the censorship industry from this exact same clandestine intelligence community censorship network created after the 2014 Crimea situation. Nina Jankovitz, when her name came up in 2022 as part of the disinformation governance board, I almost fell out of my chair because I had been tracking Nina's network for almost five years at that point, when her name came up as part of the UK inner cluster cell of a busted, clandestine operation to censor the Internet called the Integrity Initiative, which was created by the UK Foreign Office and was backed by Nato's political affairs unit in order to carry out this thing that we talked about at the beginning of this dialog, the Nato sort of psychological inoculation and the ability to kill so called russian propaganda, or rising political groups who wanted to maintain energy relations with Russia at a time when the US was trying to kill the Nordstream and other pipeline relations. [00:57:39] Well, they did that. Marine Linnakovitz was a part of this outfit. And then who was the head of it? After Nina Jankovic went down, it was Michael Chertoff. And Michael Chertoff was running the Aspen Institute cyber group. And then the Aspen Institute then goes on to be the censorship simulator for the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then two years later, Chertoff is then the head of the disinformation governance board after Nina is forced to step down. [00:58:05] Yeah, close friends. [00:58:06] Of course, Michael Chertoff was the chairman at bay. Of course, Michael Chertoff was the chairman of the largest military contractor in Europe, BAE military. [00:58:20] You've blown my mind so many times in this conversation that I'm going to need a nap directly after it's done. So I've just got two more questions for you. One short one, a little longer short one is for people who've made it this far, an hour in and want to know more about this topic. And by the way, I hope you will come back whenever you have the time to explore different threads of this story. But for people who want to do research on their own, how can your research on this be found on the Internet? [00:58:48] Sure. So our foundation is foundationforfreedomonline.com. We publish all manner of reports on every aspect of the censorship industry, from what we talked about with the role of the military industrial complex and the national security state, to what the universities are doing, I sometimes refer to as digital mkultra. There's just the field of basically the science of censorship and the funding of these psychological manipulation methods in order to nudge people into different belief systems, as they did with COVID as they did with energy. And every sensitive policy issue is what they essentially had an ambition. So my foundation for Freedomonline.com website is one way, the other way is just on x. My handle is at Mikebencyber. I'm very active there and publish a lot of long form video and written content on all this. I think it's one of the most important issues in the world today. [00:59:42] So it certainly is. And so that leads directly and seamlessly to my final question, which is about x. And I'm not just saying this because I post content there, but I think objectively, it's the last big platform that's free, or sort of free or more free. You post there, too, but we're at the very beginning of an election year, with a couple of different wars unfolding simultaneously in 2024. So do you expect that that platform can stay free for the duration of this year? [01:00:14] It's under an extraordinary amount of pressure, and that pressure is going to continue to mount as the election approaches. Elon Musk is a very unique individual, and he has a unique buffer, perhaps when it comes to the national security state, because the national security state is actually quite reliant on Elon Musk properties, whether that's for the green revolution, when it comes to Tesla and the battery technology there, when it comes to SpaceX, the State Department is hugely dependent on SpaceX because of its unbelievable sort of pioneering and saturating presence in the field of low Earth orbit satellites that are basically how our telecom system runs to things like Starlink. There are dependencies that the national security state has on Elon Musk. I'm not sure he'd have as much room to negotiate if he had become the world's richest man selling at a lemonade stand. And if the national security state goes too hard on him by invoking something like Sifius to sort of nationalize some of these properties. I think the shockwave that it would send to the international investor community would be irrecoverable at a time when we're engaged in great power. You know, they're trying to sort of induce, I think, a sort of corporate regime change through a series of things involving a sort of death by a thousand paper cuts. [01:01:44] I think there are seven or eight different justice department or SEC or FTC investigations into Elon Musk properties that all started after his acquisition of X. But then what they're trying to do right now is what I call the transatlantic flank attack 2.0. We talked in this dialog about how the censorship industry really got its start when a bunch of State Department exiles who were expecting promotions took their special set of skills in coercing european countries to pass sanctions on themselves, to cut off their own leg, to spite themselves in order to pass sanctions on Russia, they ran back that same playbook with doing a roadshow for censorship instead for sanctions. We are now witnessing transatlantic flank attack 2.0, if you will, which is because they have lost a lot of their federal government powers to do this same censorship operation they had been doing from 2018 to 2022, in part because the house has totally turned on them, in part because of the media, in part because Missouri v. Biden, which won a slam dunk case actually banning government censorship at the trial court and appellate court levels, is now before the Supreme Court. [01:02:53] They've now moved into two strategies. One of them is state level censorship laws. California just passed a new law which the censorship industry totally drove from start to finish around, required. They call it platform accountability and transparency, which is basically forcing Elon Musk to give over the kind of narrative mapping data that these CIA conduits and Pentagon cutouts were using to create these weapons of mass deletion, these abilities to just censor everything at scale, because they had all the internal platform data. Elon musk took that away. They're using state laws like this new California law to crack that open. But the major threat right now is the threat from Europe with something called the EU Digital Services act, which was cooked up in tandem with folks like Newsguard, which is run by. Which has a board of Michael Hayden, head of the CIA. NSA four star general Rick Stengel is on that from. From the State Department's propaganda office. Tom Ridge is on that board from the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, Anders fog Rasmussen is on that board. He was the general secretary of NATO under the Obama administration. So you have NATO, the CIA, the NSA, four star general, DHS, and the State Department working with the EU to craft these censorship laws that now are the largest existential threat to x, other than potentially advertiser boycotts. [01:04:17] Because there is now. Disinformation is now banned as a matter of law in the EU. And the EU is a bigger market for x than the US. There's only 300 million some people in the US. There's 450,000,000 in Europe. X is now forced to comply with this brand new law that just got ratified this year, where they either need to forfeit 6% of their global annual revenue to the EU to maintain operations there, or put in place essentially the kind of CIA bumper cars, if you will, that I've been describing over the course of this, in order to have an internal mechanism to censor anything that the EU, which is just a proxy for NATO, deems to be disinformation. And you can bet with 65 elections around the globe this year, you can predict every single time what they're going to define disinformation as. So that's the main fight right now, is dealing with the transatlantic flank attack from Europe. [01:05:11] I said this five times, but that's just one of the most remarkable stories I've ever heard, and I'm grateful to you for bringing it to us. Mike Benz, executive director of the foundation for Freedom online, and I hope we see you again. [01:05:22] Thanks, Tucker.

Irrefutable proof TRUMP WON! https://vimeo.com/omega4america Six weeks ago, Georgia and Florida citizens asked Fractal to gather official Georgia 2020 election data provided by the Secretary of State to determine who won Georgia in 2020. The Fractal team applied quantum-result Fractal technology, delivering insight impossible with obsolete SQL relational systems – currently used by every secretary of state in America – and every national voter integrity organization. Using Fractal quantum technology – the Fractal team built a “digital sandbox” with all available Georgia data – from many sources – recreating with official records what happened in Georgia in 2020. What you will see in this video – the first of several upcoming Georgia videos – is why every state in the U.S. has from 5% to 20% of its voter roll with inaccurate data. Critical Medications Every American Can Have On Hand (Including Ivermectin) – And How To Get Them Prescribed That’s alarming when elections are determined by less than 1% of the vote! This video below shows first-time voter registration rolls, cast ballot rolls, death records, known address records, Georgia county property tax records, NCOA change of address records and other databases integrated into a single Fractal “query surface” – accessible with one click – from any digital device – even a phone. At 200 million transactions per second! Using advanced Fractal quantum analysis, artificial intelligence techniques tested at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, similarity search, cross database search – Fractal determines how “clean” Georgia voter rolls were in 2020 – and offers insight into whether the Georgia ERIC system did its purported job. ERIC, used by Georgia to clean its voter rolls – is highlighted throughout this analysis – live for every viewer to see. ** Read more about the ERIC System here. As the video shows, with a single click, a user can determine if a voter cast a ballot yet was not in the voter registration file. If they did, why didn’t ERIC catch it? With a single click, one can determine if a Georgia voter has multiple official voter IDs – the equivalent of having multiple Social Security Numbers. If so, why didn’t ERIC catch it? *With a single click, one can determine if a Georgia 2020 voter cast a ballot from an ineligible address – like a warehouse, UPS store, Post Office, or a vacant lot – that was counted! In such a case, why didn’t ERIC catch it? This Fractal Georgia database is the single largest database of Georgia voter data ever integrated into a single query surface – offering the user the ability to ask complex questions – from their phone – with a single click – resulting in 200 million transactions per second. No complex programming – no expensive computers. This system was built in 3 weeks. This Fractal system runs on a computer smaller than two packs of cigarettes – costing less than $300. The disruptive aspect of this Georgia Fractal system is not what you see in the video below. The disruption is what this Fractal system does for 2024 – in Georgia – to stop ballots being mailed to ineligible recipients – who will vote – or have someone vote for them – via mail-in ballots. Meet the Undeliverable Ballot Database! This Fractal Georgia system is the first real-time voter reconciliation system ever built – now being deployed – through generous 3rd party funding – from non-political actors. For the first time, property tax rolls, death records, NCOA Postal change of address records, 911 records, and other databases – are cross searched – instantly – against every new voter registration – to determine if that person claims a Walmart as their home. For the first time, every mail-in ballot going to an ineligible recipient is flagged BEFORE it goes out. Every new voter registration is flagged – IF the person lives in a utility shed without a bathroom – before the vote is cast – not litigated afterward. ERIC – as you will see – misses ALL OF THIS! People voting from colleges, universities, RV parks are identified via time series analysis – with thousands to tens of thousands – voting for 30 or 40 years – from transient addresses. 211,958 Georgia voters in 2020 voted from inappropriate addresses Fractal will demonstrate in upcoming videos for Alabama, Ohio, Texas, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and 12 other states – the same dirty voter rolls.” Maybe in these states going to college is a 20 – year experience! Fractal does not judge. Fractal lets citizens in these states – via time series analysis – determine if it is OK for hospital patients, rehab patients, college students, to vote for decades from these clearly “transient” addresses. It must be OK because, in every state in America, there are thousands into tens of thousands doing it – and the government is doing NOTHING about it. In Alabama, Fractal found people at fraternity houses, voting for decades – one was over 100 years old! Upcoming video. People – this is everywhere! Fractal gives citizens the power to challenge anomalies – like 34 people living in an 874 square foot Alabama or Georgia home with one bath and one bedroom. Fractal gives citizens extraordinary insight – from their phone – with one click – with more technology in their hands than their government can muster with tens of millions of dollars a year in state budgets! 2024 is the birth of citizens fighting back with the Undeliverable Ballot Database. For the first time, election anomalies can be stopped BEFORE votes are cast, not litigated afterward! Georgia and Florida teams are ingesting voter rolls, new registrants, and cast ballot information for cross-search through the 2024 election. In some states, voter rolls are ingested daily to find illegal aliens registering to vote when they get a driver’s license. This is the first Undeliverable Ballot Database system where Georgia citizens can determine – before ballots are sent out – where ballots are being sent to illegitimate addresses – that may raise the same integrity questions in 2024 as are now raised for 2020. Thanks are due to the Georgia county governments who provided property tax rolls for building and home identification. Thanks to the Georgia and Florida citizens who built this system using Fractal and the single organization – who wants to remain nameless – who funded this Fractal license. The entire cost for this system – for a full year – is less than $250,000. This is a tiny fraction of what the Georgia Secretary of State is currently spending on ERIC, on massive staffs, on Salesforce systems – none of which can catch what Fractal found with diligent citizens – in a couple of weeks – and you can see in a 50-minute demo. The Georgia voter rolls – as Fractal shows without a doubt – are wildly inaccurate to the point where they should NEVER be used for ANY election – and Fractal looks to Georgia to provide ALL ITS DATA to prove us wrong!!! In subsequent Georgia videos, Fractal will show the thousands of people who changed their names – slightly – to vote more than once. All missed by ERIC. Videos are currently in production showing the Georgia Secretary of State office changing HISTORICAL VOTER RECORDS – years after an election – to make things match. Fractal finds this with – again – one click! In 2024 – the Undeliverable Ballot Database can determine who wins Georgia – and make Georgia citizens confident of the result. The Fractal state systems for voter roll analysis and Medicaid fraud analysis are highlighted at Omega4America.com. The Omega4America Fractal team is posting similar videos for Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Alabama, Texas, Minnesota, Kansas, Mississippi, and other states with similar issues. In several states, Secretaries of State are using Fractal to perform a data audit of their voter rolls – to fix these problems before 2024. Any questions should be directed to the Omega4America.com Fractal micro-website. Here is the Georgia 2020 results video. This is an incredible video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Nl6c4L1Zw&pp=ygUWbmVpbCBvbGl2ZXIga3J5cHRvbml0ZQ%3D%3D 10 Feb 2024 #gbnews #neiloliver #julianassange Neil Oliver says 'truth is the kryptonite of the parasite class', as talks about how politicians 'cover up the truth' to further their own interests, and he uses Julian Assange as an example of 'holding truth to power'. #gbnews #neiloliver #julianassange #wikileaks #ukraine #putin #israel #hamas #covid19

Trump can't win circa 2015-2016 Let's put them through it again - since they stole 2020

Mollie Hemingway from The Federalist testifying in Jan 2024

PLEASE READ in FULL VERY IMPORTANT These articles disappear after a short time so I am preserving it here https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/02/10/deadly-rise-of-scientism.aspx The Deadly Rise of Scientism Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor February 10, 2024 deadly rise of scientism STORY AT-A-GLANCE The scientific process is one of the greatest tools humanity has created to separate fact from fiction. Because of the remarkable societal advancements science has created, our society in turn has placed a deep trust science This trust has incentivized bad actors to usurp the scientific process so that they can claim whatever “truth” benefits their interests is the truth This coup has been accomplished by transforming science (the open debate of all existing data) into scientism (a religion where you are expected to unquestionably trust the pronouncements of the anointed “scientific experts”) Peter Hotez and Anthony Fauci have played a pivotal roles in enshrining scientism throughout our society. In this article, we will review just how they did that, the profound consequences of their actions and exactly what happens once no one can debate the science One of the greatest challenges each society faces is deciding what constitutes "truth." Whoever holds that power wields enormous influence and steers the direction of the society for better or for worse. For centuries, "truth" was delegated to the ruling institutions of the time, and hence truth was simply the narrative which conformed to their interests. Then, during the enlightenment period a new idea emerged — that truth could be determined empirically through experimentation and data. This in turn gave birth to the scientific revolution, and while not perfect (as vested interests would still try to make their "narrative" be truth irrespective of what the scientific data showed), scientific inquiry began shaping the direction of Western Culture, and in a rocky fashion gradually moved society forward, giving us many of the benefits we take for granted today. Sadly however, the tendency of ruling interests to want to monopolize the truth never went away and we’ve watched a curious phenomenon emerge where science, riding on the social credit earned by the success of its revolutionary discoveries, has gradually transformed into something not that different from a state religion. Given that science was originally meant to be a way to move beyond truth being monopolized by the dogmatic institutions which ran society, it is quite tragic that science has become one as well. As a result, science has more and more become the practice of "trusting scientific experts" and not being allowed to question their interpretations of the data — or even see it. This is very different from what science was originally intended to be — the collective endeavor of scientists around the world to put forth ideas and have the ones that stand up to scrutiny become the generally accepted standard. In turn, we continually see "experts" put forth ideas which are clearly wrong and hurt a great number of people but help the corporate sponsor who paid the expert off. In the past, this behavior would be called out, but since those same corporate sponsors also own the media, these "experts" are shielded from scrutiny, and science has simply become every public voice echoing the expert’s pronouncements. This was best illustrated by Fauci’s infamous defense against a Congressional inquiry for his complicity in creating COVID-19, the disastrous policies he had inflicted upon America throughout the pandemic, and the fact he continually lied about his conduct — frequently doing so in an audacious manner that self-evident to anyone who looked at the publicly available footage of Fauci. To defend himself, Fauci argued he was "the science," so criticizing anything he had done was unacceptable as it equated to an attack on science itself. Video Link "It’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous. To me, that’s more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I’m not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever." Note: Another important thing to consider about Fauci’s interview was him using the term "antiscience" to attack and dismiss his critics (which will be further discussed below). Superficial Rhetoric One of the saddest discoveries genuine intellectuals make once they enter academia (which is supposed to be their "home") is that much of the "prestigious knowledge" their institutions produce is actually just simple or nonsensical concepts cloaked in elaborate rhetoric [language] that makes their points appear to be something much more impressive. For example, the "postmodernist" discourse is pervasive throughout academia and frequently the standard you are expected to measure up to. Yet, in 1996, a programmer from Monash University realized that if he used an existing engine designed to generate random text from recursive grammars, he could generate postmodern essays which appeared to be authentic. In essence, this meant that complete nonsense (as the text was random) could be passed off as authoritative and credible simply because it matched the expected appearance of this hard to understand writing. Likewise, in 1996, a deliberately nonsensical paper (which proposed that gravity was a social construct) written in the post-modernist style was accepted for publication by a well-known academic journal — after which its authors admitted what they had done in order to illustrate that the academic process was promoting the publication of nonsensical ideas that conformed to the existing narrative. Note: The postmodern generator’s products can be viewed here (a new one will be generated each time you click the link). Later, another generator was made that attempted to replicate the linguistic structures used throughout the new age field (e.g., to sell products) and I lost count of how many people I knew who thought the essays were authentic (and often remarked how touched they were by "my" writing). In turn, I feel much of what we are now witnessing with ChatGPT’s automatically generated text is just a more sophisticated version of those engines, as once you look beyond the surface, there’s a surprising lack of meaning to its essays. While these examples seem a bit absurd, they are in fact highly applicable to the current state of political discourse. For example, in many fields, impressive sounding rhetoric is used to describe relatively simple concepts (e.g., in medicine, many diagnoses are simply the symptoms said back in Latin), which results in an aura of prestige and inaccessibility being imparted to those within the field when they are observed by the general public. Note: This is analogous to how "experts" always claims the public is not qualified to assess the data even when what the data shows is clear and unambiguous. Likewise, public relations discovered years ago that one of the most effective ways to control the public was by using focus groups to identify short phrases (e.g., "safe and effective") that effectively emotionally manipulated the audience and then spamming that phrase on every single news network (which is possible due to the fact that six companies own almost all of the media in the United States). This brief montage provides one of the clearest illustrations I have seen of this widespread practice: Note: This is also analogous to how politicians, officials and CEOs typically evade whatever question is asked to them and instead continually repeat the scripted phrases their PR firm crafted for them. Clear Rhetoric Decades ago, a professor at an Ivy League University (at a time when those appointments were held to a higher standard) shared an anecdote I’ve never forgotten: "If you actually understand a subject, you should be able to explain it to a truck driver. Most academics don’t fully understand their subject, so they cloak it in fancy rhetoric no one without their training can understand." In turn, I’ve tried to replicate that wisdom in the writing here, and I know from the feedback I receive that for the most part (excluding the particularly complex medical topics) I’ve succeeded in concisely conveying the concepts covered here in a manner that makes them possible to be understood by those without specialized medical training. This I would argue is both a testament to the "non-experts" ability to understand the core scientific issues of our era once they are presented clearly, and how harmful it is to the public discourse that so many topics are cloaked behind an impenetrable rhetorical shield which creates the illusion only the experts are fit to discuss them. Download this Article Before it Disappears Download PDF Censoring Debate When I was much younger, I participated in a variety of debate activities. From that, I gained an appreciation for the fact it is relatively easy to argue almost any viewpoint (especially once you invoke the nonsensical postmodernist constructs) and that if you had a relatively clear presence of mind, you could normally cut through whatever rhetoric [language] the other party was using to obfuscate their point and illustrate the actual absurdity of it. However, at the same time, I was struck by the fact most debaters did not do that and would instead try to "win" by invoking their own set of nonsensical academic constructs and that in many cases within the weird world of academia, it seemed to be an unspoken rule that you did not directly call out the hogwash for what it was. In turn, when I watched "debates" happen in the public sphere, as the years have gone by, the "experts" who debate each other became less and less willing to cut to the heart of the matter and instead danced around the point by using a myriad of sculpted language which sounded good but didn’t expose anything of importance. Conversely however, "non-experts" whose social status was not dependent upon conforming to these unspoken rules held no such hesitation, and thus would rapidly expose the absurdity of whatever point was being expressed. To illustrate, I recently completed a series about previous vaccine disasters and the media’s willingness to openly discuss them (whereas now in contrast, even though the COVID-19 vaccine has been significantly more devastating than any of those previous disastrous vaccines, there has been complete censorship of the topic on almost every single network). In that series, I presented a variety of news clips from that era where journalists directly questioned the vaccine promoters, and in each instance, it became very clear to everyone watching it that something was amiss and the "experts" were lying (e.g., consider watching the NBC and 60 Minutes news segments shared in this article). Likewise, at that time, parties who were skeptical of vaccination were allowed to engage experts who would come on in support of vaccines. Consider for example the debate on one of the most popular talk shows in America between these two doctors (one in support of vaccination and one critical of it) in front of a live audience, and how clearly the audience sided with the doctor who effectively critiqued the vaccination pusher: Video Link Note: While I do not have the entire video of this debate, I do have the transcript of it (which can be read here). From reading it, it becomes remarkably clear that the doctor advocating for vaccination had an indefensible position, that the pro-vaccine camp lied with impunity, and everyone in the audience could see through it once the other side was allowed to point out his lies. One of the things I find the most noteworthy about each of these clips was that the news anchors and talk show hosts were not hostile towards vaccines — rather they tried to present things in a fair manner and allow both sides to be heard. However, since the facts so clearly argued against the existing vaccination program, it became very clear to the audiences that something was amiss, and each of these programs significantly decreased the public’s willingness to vaccinate even though the "experts" told them to. Given that each televised debate caused the public to lose confidence in the vaccines, there were essentially three options for the pro-vaccine camp: Pivot to a more reasonable position (e.g., spacing vaccines out, not mandating them, supporting those with vaccine injuries or taking the most unjustified vaccines off the market). Have individuals who were good at debating defend the vaccine (as most of the "experts" weren’t). Refuse to ever debate again. As you might suspect, they chose the third option (e.g., I’ve read numerous scientific publications specifically saying it is not appropriate to debate vaccine skeptics publicly), but simultaneously as much as possible tried to pretend they were still publicly defending that position. This was accomplished through having a complicit media which created safe spaces for the "experts" where they could repeat their nonsensical script without being challenged (e.g., no one should question what I am saying because "I represent science"). Note: I suspect due to more and more corporate advertising dollars flowing in, particularly after Clinton legalized direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising in 1997 (a predatory practice that is illegal in most of the world), which allowed the pharmaceutical industry to become the largest television advertiser and hence financially blackmail the networks into giving them favorable coverage. Peter Hotez Over the last decade, Peter Hotez has worked to position himself as the public face of the pro-vaccine movement, something I believe was ultimately done so he could secure over 100 million dollars in funding to develop dubious vaccines that (except for a recent COVID one) never went anywhere. Note: Hotez’s grift is something frequently seen throughout academia, although it exceedingly rare for the grifters to be anywhere near as successful as Hotez. A key part of Hotez’s grift has been to brand himself as the public face of science (he even wrote a 2020 paper about becoming a national vaccine spokesman) so that he’ll constantly be brought on television to defend the narrative (e.g., by attacking anyone who questions it) and secure funding for his grifts "research". What’s fascinating about Hotez is the profound lack of self awareness he demonstrates in his public presentations (i.e. to put it generously, he’s always a mess) and the degree to which he says clearly false statements or continually contradicts his past statements (e.g., from existing footage its possible to make videos of Hotez debating himself). Yet despite this, Hotez always gets called to speak in front of the media as an "expert" where he is showered with adoration by each news host and never asked a single critical question which might expose how full of it he was. Note: I hold no guilt in attacking Hotez because every person I know who directly knows him has nothing positive to say about his character. Conversely, Hotez is notorious for hiding from his critics, never placing himself in a public venue where he can be questioned and only responding to criticisms once he is in a safe space where he can say whatever he wants to say without being challenged. Note: Hotez also notorious for immediately blocking anyone who criticizes him (even if they don’t even comment on his Tweets), which in turn requires you to use an external service like Nitter to be able to view Hotez’s deluge of self-congratulatory postings. Recently, a Texas citizen was able to break Hotez’s embargo by (non-confrontationally) sneaking in a question to him immediately after Hotez received a glowing introduction by the Rabbi: "I’m sorry but I have to interrupt. Dr. Hotez, I know about the children who have died from the Pfizer vaccine and it’s your job to not deny that. It’s not a hate crime to question science, you understand that. I will leave now." She was immediately ejected from the synagogue and shortly after banned for life from both her synagogue but also the neighboring cemetery (where her family members were buried) with the explicit threat of law enforcement being called if she violated the ban. Remarkably, while Hotez refuses to so much as speak to his critics, he loves to throw very nasty allegations at people who challenge the narrative. Typically, he does this with impunity, but this summer, something remarkable happened after he attacked Rogan: peter hotez post joe rogan post peter hotez reply joe rogan reply Shortly after, Bill Ackman jumped in, offering to contribute an additional $150,000.00 to get Hotez to debate RFK Jr. Realizing this was a golden opportunity to red-pill a lot of people (which it ultimately was), we made some calls, and in less than two days, the pot was over 2.62 million dollars. The story quickly made national headlines as it illustrated: Hotez was so afraid of exposing himself to criticism, no amount of money could change that. Even though Hotez constantly talks in the media about his moral superiority because of his devotion to charitable endeavors (e.g., his vaccines which went nowhere), when he had an actual opportunity to do something that could help people in need, he wasn’t willing to. elon musk In turn, rather than respond to the debate challenge, the next day, Hotez had a friendly MSNBC host introduce him by regurgitating pharmaceutical talking points, who then gave Hotez almost two minutes to share his talking points, after which the host praised Hotez and doubled down on everything Hotez had said. Note: I think this three minute segment is an excellent example of the nauseating propaganda you see throughout the pharmaceutical owned networks now. I learned of it after Hotez shared the segment on his Twitter. Since that time, Hotez has made a number of remarkable statements about those events. For instance, really think through what’s being said by Hotez this recent interview: "Clayton: You famously declined to debate Robert F Kennedy Jr. on Joe Rogan's show. Was that an easy decision for you? Hotez: Yeah, that was never in the cards. I've known Bobby Kennedy for a number of years and I've had a number of conversations with him over the years. They didn't get anywhere. He's just too dug in, doesn't want to listen to the science. So I knew it wouldn't be productive, but I also thought it could harm the field because it would give people the wrong message about how science works. I mean, science is not something that's achieved through public debate. Science is achieved through writing scientific papers by serious scientists that submit articles for peer review, and then they get modified or rejected and grants that get modified, rejected, or you present in front of scientific conferences in front of your peers for critical feedback. And it's a very successful approach. You don't debate science like you'd debate enlightenment, philosophy or politics." Note: The largest problem with this argument is that our scientific system is suffering a systemic failure of erroneous (e.g., fraudulent) research flooding the scientific literature, a sustained inability to develop paradigm shifting ideas that improve society, and a complete inability to reject erroneous scientific dogmas (e.g., consider what happened throughout COVID-19). All of this is a direct consequence of debate not being allowed into science, and as a result, we spend more and more to simply re-validate the existing scientific narratives. Weaponizing Language Years ago, I heard a theory be proposed which argued that the general populace has a great deal of difficulty comprehending concepts which required putting multiple premises together (in other words the complex and nuanced topics) and instead required ideas to be presented to them as "simplistic truths" (e.g., emotionally charged soundbites). In turn, you will notice that almost all forms of modern propaganda seek to associate a word with everything its promoters need (e.g., that they are good while their political opponents are bad), after which that word is plastered everywhere it is needed. For example, after 9/11, Bush was able to successfully label anyone who disagreed with the horrendous policies he pushed for "unpatriotic." For example, on September 20, 2001, he stated the following in an address to a joint session of Congress: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Note: This line was met with applause by our legislators. Before long, few were willing to criticize any of Bush’s horrendous policies as they were afraid of being "unpatriotic." Similarly, throughout Trump’s presidency, the media was able to successfully label anyone who supported him as a "Nazi" and this (nonsensical) label became so powerful it both silenced many of his supporters and drummed up a widespread hatred towards him which made many feel it was justified to use any means necessary to stop Trump or his supporters. Note: There are many other examples of labels losing any bearing with reality as a result of them being weaponized against a group’s political opponents (e.g., consider what has happened with the word "racist"). One of the most important things to understand about this tactic is that it requires the other side to be unable to challenge the absurdity of the label (e.g., how on earth does me not wanting to squander the national budget through bombing thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East make me "unpatriotic?"). For this reason, the media will always give the individuals weaponizing the current label a supportive forum to repeat it over and over so that the masses will unthinkingly associate it with the sponsor’s agenda. Note: During Trump’s 2016 campaign, the American media in coordination attempted to make their sculpted term "fake news" be applied to any independent voice which criticized the existing narrative. Once the campaign had gained a sufficient degree of momentum (hence making it harder to stop), Trump suddenly started using his megaphone to associate it over and over with CNN rather than the independent media (e.g., "the fake news is the enemy of the people"). This resulted in the campaign backfiring and it decreasing rather than increasing public trust in the mainstream media, making it one of the only examples I know of where someone was able to undermine a major linguistic weaponization campaign (as Trump did not did not need to be compliant to be given an audience on the mass media and hence was in a unique position to speak out). Antiscience Taking a cue from the propagandists, Peter Hotez also searched for a label to silence all of his critics. He (possibly with the help of a PR firm) settled on "antiscience," and as he only presents himself to sympathetic audiences who won’t question him, was able to keep upping the ante with it, before long claiming "antiscience" represented an existential danger to our Democracy, was the greatest killing force in the world, and hence called for governments around the world to be weaponized against anyone promoting "antiscience." For a while we ignored these antics because of how ridiculous they were, but eventually realized after this WHO sponsored tweet that it had gone too far (this is the type of thing that leads to dark places) and something needed to be done about it: Note: Beyond this being full of factual inaccuracies, there is no possible way Hotez could have made this on his own (which suggests it was instead made by a pharmaceutically funded PR firm). Since the media had strategically shielded Hotez from having anyone call out his lies, I realized the only option to nip this in the bud would be to do something which blew Hotez’s credibility with the public. I then had a flash of inspiration, recalling something I’d seen a few years before and sent this clip to Pierre Kory. By the grace of God, it went viral (I believe it has been seen over 10 million times now) and completely knocked the wind of Hotez’s sails. Note: This comical exchange represents one of the few times Hotez has been in front of an audience who did not unconditionally support everything he said, which again illustrates why it is so critical for vaccine advocates to never expose themselves to even the lightest form of public debate. About six months later, after hearing yet another antiscience tirade from Hotez, another thought occurred to me — how is he actually defining antiscience? After looking for a while, I couldn’t find an answer. This prompted me to write a thoughtful article about the meaning of "antiscience" and Hotez’s habitual tendency to fling nasty accusations at anyone who disagreed with him and then claim to be a victim the moment anyone called out this behavior. Robert Malone kindly agreed to publish the article on June 14, and by some odd coincidence, three days later, Peter Hotez decided to pick a fight with Joe Rogan. What Is "Antiscience?" In that article, I attempted to define antiscience. Since I could not find a definition from Hotez, I went with Wikipedia’s which stated: "Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. Antiscience commonly manifests through rejection of scientific ideas such as climate change and evolution. It also includes pseudoscience, methods that claim to be scientific but reject the scientific method. Antiscience leads to belief in conspiracy theories and alternative medicine." Note: Since I wrote the original article, an extra sentence was added which stated "lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments," which as you might imagine, referenced Hotez’s work (which asserts but doesn’t actually demonstrate that link). Fortunately, Wikipedia was willing to acknowledge the inherent issues with this label: "Elyse Amend and Darin Barney [in 2015] argue that while antiscience can be a descriptive label, it is often used as a rhetorical one, being effectively used to discredit ones' political opponents and thus charges of antiscience are not necessarily warranted." Note: One of the central themes I found throughout researching the lengthy philosophical debate on "antiscience" was that there were huge political implications over exactly where a society chose to draw the line as to what constituted "antiscience." I thus patiently waited for Peter Hotez’s book "The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science" to come out as I hoped it would at last explicitly define his nebulous slander (especially given that the June 14th article had effectively publicly challenged him to do so). Let’s look at what Hotez said: "Anti-science has historical roots that go back more than one hundred years, to when Joseph Stalin first understood its value to an authoritarian regime like Communist Russia. Discrediting science and attacking scientists is a central theme for autocrats seeking to hold power and acquire geopolitical dominance. This is a deeply troubling and profoundly sad American tragedy but one that must be unveiled in order to prevent further loss of life and to restore science as an essential component of the American fabric. Anti-science is a broader term that includes efforts to undermine the mainstream views of vaccinology as well as research conclusions in other areas, such as climate science and global warming. In biomedicine, anti-science targets multiple fields, including evolutionary biology, stem cell biology, gene editing and gene therapy, vaccinology, and virology. A prominent example features unfounded claims about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Disinformation and conspiracy theories represent major tactics of groups and individuals committed to anti-science agendas. They undermine confidence in mainstream scientific thought and practices but also in the scientists themselves. Anti-science leaders and groups employ threats and bullying tactics against prominent US scientists. Increasingly and especially in the United States, anti-science has become an important but dangerous political movement. It increasingly attracts those who harbor extremist views. In 2021, I defined it as follows: 'Anti-science is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. It targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them.'" In other words, it meant exactly what it appeared to from his usage — "anyone who disagrees with me or the narrative is bad." Note: A more detailed review of the lies within Hotez’s book and the sinister agenda he is promoting can be found here. I thus believe that were Hotez to ever publicly debate someone who was not on his side, the moment he started spewing antiscience slanders to support his position, he would immediately be called asked to explain exactly what he meant (which would thus torpedo his argument). Debating the Orthodoxy Because of how effectively the media vanquished the idea "experts" should be called upon to defend their positions, the public gradually stopped demanding they be afforded the same public forums we saw throughout the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s when concerns were raised about vaccination. This changed when Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist realized it was essential to reinstate that standard and began to relentlessly pursue getting that debate. Once every party he contacted predictable refused to defend their actions (e.g., FDA and CDC officials ignoring innumerable COVID vaccine safety signals) Kirsch pivoted to a new strategy — offer them increasing sums of money to debate him and then widely publicize their continued unwillingness to debate. Since money talks, Kirsch’s offers made it clear to much of the public the excuses they gave (e.g., "it’s not worth their time to debate misinformation") were a bunch of hot air and their actual reason for refusing to engage in a debate was because it represented an existential risk to them. In short, Kirsch at last found a way to undo the climate the media had worked for decades to create where members of the orthodoxy could spout their lies and nonsense with impunity, and in turn, more and more articles have begun to appear which attempt to justify why it is not appropriate for "science" to engage in a debate with an unorthodox viewpoint. Note: Things did not always used to be this way. Not too long ago, doctors at hospitals would frequently debate medical controversies and conflicting policies their hospitals were considering for adoption. Data for Me but Not for Ye One of the depressing trends we’ve watched occur for the last few decades has been for the following collective social beliefs to be established. •Step 1 — There are lots of problems with our world. Better science and better data is the solution to those issues. •Step 2 — Data is our salvation, we must do everything we can to collect it, and our society’s decisions should be based around it. •Step 3 — Data actually is too complicated for anyone except the experts to analyze. •Step 4 — Those who collect data (e.g., private corporations or the government) should have the right to keep the data private regardless of how much the interpretations of that data influences our lives. Justifications for this include "the need to protect privacy," "the need to protect the financial investment a private company made in obtaining that ‘proprietary’ data" and the need to ensure the data is analyzed by "experts" who can understand the data. •Step 5 — Any data collected from a non-approved source should be disregarded if it conflicts with the existing narrative. Amazingly, this strategy has worked. Nonetheless, many attempts were made to oppose it. For example, many people don’t know this, but the reason the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) exists was because in 1986, it was well known within the vaccine safety community that it was impossible for parents to report severe vaccine injuries (as doctors, vaccine manufactures and the government refused to document those). That in turn made it possible to argue there was "no data" those injuries occurred, and hence dismiss parents whenever they shared the injury their child had experienced. To solve this problem, the activists forced a provision into the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act which stipulated that a database the public could directly report vaccine injuries to needed to exist, and that the data in it must be made available to the public. Once this database was created, enough of the public learned of it for reports to start trickling into it, and vaccine safety advocates were at last able to identify a variety of specific injuries that were linked to various vaccines. Conversely, as VAERS broke their monopoly on vaccine injury data, the entire medical establishment did all that they could to undermine VAERS (e.g., by not ever telling doctors it existed, by not staffing it with enough personnel to could process the reports it received and by claiming the data from VAERS was junk only a moron would try to infer anything from). Because of this, until COVID, relatively few people were aware of VAERS existence or its utility (which led to approximately only 1% of vaccine injuries being reported to it). For example, listen to this response Peter Hotez gave to a surprise question he received at what he believed was a "safe" venue (and hence answered it): Video Link Succinctly, Hotez states that if someone were to raise concerns about the data in VAERS to a doctor, they should be reminded that much better monitoring systems exist and that we should "trust" those ones, rather than any of the "junk" that comes out of VAERS. Simultaneously, he neglects to mention that the public is never given access to those databases — rather they are told to trust what experts deduce from them, which not surprisingly always points towards vaccines being "safe and effective." Note: During COVID, through a lengthy FOIA request, we were eventually able to gain access to one of the "more reliable" databases Hotez referenced. That database showed the COVID vaccines were extremely dangerous and that the "expert" report which had previously been made to the public about that database was deceitfully crafted in a manner which concealed those red flags. Likewise, in 2014, a CDC whistleblower revealed that after the CDC conducted a study to disprove the link between vaccines and autism, once the data showed the opposite (that vaccines caused autism) the CDC reworked the study to cover that link up and (illegally) disposed of the original raw data which showed that link. Since it has become so difficult to access critical vaccine safety data, throughout COVID, we’ve instead been forced to rely upon lawsuits and whistleblowers to obtain it or to utilize public databases which indirectly show the societal impacts of the vaccines. If you take a step back, this is completely absurd, especially given that millions of people had their core civil liberties taken away by vaccination mandates which were predicated on flawed interpretations of data we were expected to "trust" but never allowed to verify. Nonetheless, given how widespread the harm from the vaccines was, more and more of that data was leaked. Recently, this culminated with a New Zealand whistleblower forfeiting his career and risking his personal freedom (presently he faces a 7 year prison sentence) to leak (anonymized) record level data. This data provided a compelling case the COVID vaccine was harming people, and to my knowledge represents the first time record level data for a vaccine became available to the public. Note: Record level data is the "gold-standard" of data that allows one to clearly determine if there is or is not a correlation between an intervention (e.g., a vaccine) and a change in the human body (e.g., death). When I learned about this imminent release, my first thought was "I wonder how the vaccine zealots will respond to this." In turn, my best guess was that they’d reuse the existing playbook (ridicule it, refuse to debate it, and insist it was the wrong data source to use for determining causation). This in turn ended up being exactly what happened. For example, when David Gorski (a well-known ardent defender of the prevailing narrative who actively disparages Kirsch but steadfastly refuses to debate him) learned of the data, he chose to "address" it by publishing a piece on his blog. Since Gorski consistently follows the Hotez playbook, the content of that article should be easy enough to guess; he made a variety of child-like attacks against Kirsch and the NZ whistleblower (e.g., they aren’t "experts" qualified to evaluate the data) and simultaneously insisted that the data was not sufficient for anything to determined from it. What I found remarkable about Gorski’s piece was that it repeatedly implied a very simple question. If this dataset in Gorski’s eyes was not sufficient to assess the harm of the vaccines (as it only included 40% of the vaccine records rather than all of them, hence raising the possibility there was some element of bias in the sample and likewise did not contain an unvaccinated control group for the vaccine death rate to be compared to), who bears the burden of responsibility for this? Gorski and Hotez (and many others) have asserted the burden of responsibility is on individual presenting the (incomplete) data and stating it suggests a red flag is present since more data is needed to be certain this indeed in the case. However, the far more reasonable argument would be: if the available data shows a red flag is there, the parties possessing the complete data set (e.g., New Zealand’s government) have an obligation to provide that data to the public, and doing anything else is a tacit admission the complete dataset would prove the existence of that red flag. In short, were any of these defenders of the orthodoxy to debate a skeptical audience in public, one of the first rebuttals to their arguments would be "that’s nice, but if you feel that the existing data isn’t good enough to assess if the COVID vaccines are unsafe, why aren’t you advocating for releasing the raw data which would settle this question?" However, since the corporate owned media has granted them their own perpetual safe spaces, simple questions like this never can be raised. Antiscience or Scientism? The term "antiscience" has had a great deal of trouble "sticking" in the public’s mind both because it’s an awkward term and because it represents a fictional concept most people don’t really relate to (as only members of the scientific orthodoxy tend to be upset by the society refusing to blindly follow their pronouncements). Conversely however, another much more well-known term exists, which I would argue is due to it being a real concept many have direct experience with. "Scientism" is a way of describing science being transformed into a religious institution which cannot be questioned and must be viewed as the sole arbiter of truth (e.g., if you saw seven different healthy people die shortly after a vaccine, because that association has not been proven in science’s peer-reviewed literature, your observation is false and hence must be discounted). trust the scientism Note: The above picture was put up by protesters in DC two years ago. Since science is supposed to be a self-correcting institution which depends upon bad hypotheses being thrown out, the rise of scientism represents a profound tragedy for our society as it disables that critical corrective mechanism. Once science is transformed into scientism, entrenched scientific dogmas persist indefinitely while new ideas which challenge them are never permitted to see the light of day. In turn, countless observers have noticed it has become far rarer for paradigm shifting ideas (e.g., the discovery of DNA) to emerge. Consider for instance what was discovered by this 2023 study published by Nature: disruptive science dwindles In short, we are spending far more on science for far far less. Note: This is an unfortunate scenario which often is seen in an industry which receives large financial subsidies, as those subsidies incentivize the industry to focus on retaining those subsidies rather than creating economically competitive innovations (e.g., many believe the government giving unconditional student loans to everyone made higher education much more expensive but simultaneously much poorer in quality). In the case of research, since the typical scientist’s career depends upon grants or industry employment, they cannot afford to publish anything which challenges the narrative as doing so blacklists them from those funding sources. The Deadly Rise of Scientism While Hotez (and Fauci) claim the greatest danger we’ve seen in the last 4 years has been the rise of "antiscience" (a lack of blind trust in our scientific institutions) I believe the actual issue has been the rapid proliferation of scientism throughout our society. For instance, believing in the "magic" of science has become a common advertising theme the society has been conditioned to worship. To illustrate, consider one of the key marketing slogan’s Pfizer used to sell their vaccine (e.g., see this commercial): science will win Yet, at the same time they said this, as whistleblowers revealed, Pfizer was knowingly conducting fraudulent clinical trials which in contrast to the widely parroted "safe and effective" line, had actually found the opposite but concealed it. In turn, once the vaccines hit the market, we saw the same wave of injuries and vaccine failures that had actually been detected in the trials. In short, "trusting the science" meant denying that was happening and not questioning the integrity Pfizer’s trial. Note: This is similar to how Pfizer claimed their vaccine prevented COVID-19 transmission even though it was well known that had never been evaluated in the COVID vaccine trials. Since this was a contentious issue (as it had been used to justify forcing people who didn’t want to vaccinate to vaccinate so others would "be protected"), a member of parliament eventually asked Pfizer why they did this, at which point, their spokesperson justified this lie by saying "we had to move at the speed of science." Likewise, it was later discovered that the pivotal study used to justify that the unvaccinated represented a danger to society was junk science and paid for by Pfizer. Throughout COVID-19, many honest academics and researchers observed that, much like after 9/11, a climate suddenly was created where it was simply not acceptable to question the prevailing narrative (e.g., see this article). As a result, many patently absurd ideas were put forward such as: •The COVID-19 virus did not emerge from a lab, even though the lab where COVID-19 broke out had already published numerous papers on creating unnatural viruses that were very similar to COVID-19. Note: It was later revealed that Fauci (who, like Hotez, funded the research which synthetically created these deadly viruses) had bribed "experts" to publish a paper nonsensically declaring the COVID-19 virus was actually natural (when in reality, those experts believed it had been leaked from a lab). •An epidemiologist who was known for making outlandish (and consistently false) predictions about the death rate from a new infectious disease absurdly claiming that COVID-19 would infect almost everyone and kill 0.9% of those infected. Note: It was later shown that the IFR was between 0.034% to 0.05% for those under 70. •Claiming that this 0.9% fatality rate meant millions would die unless draconian (and experimental) lockdown measures were implemented (that were and still continue to be immensely devastating to the working class). Note: It was later shown that the epidemiologist massively overestimated the risk of death (e.g., in many cases he predicted thousands of times more deaths than what actually came to pass). •Claiming there was no treatment for the virus, which in turn was used to justify the necessity of a variety of harsh public health interventions. •Claiming the vaccines were very safe, 95% effective, necessary to mandate as they prevented the spread of COVID and would soon end the pandemic. It goes without saying that had a scientific debate been permitted within the mass media for any of these points, they would have not have stood up to scrutiny. However, because scientism became the state religion, the few who dared to challenge faced persecution not that different from what heretics experienced in theocracies of the past, and before long, the scientific establishment’s lies became entrenched dogmas the entire world was forced to suffer through (e.g., millions died). Conclusion Modern propaganda began to emerge at the time of the first World War. As it came into being, a fierce debate emerged over if it was acceptable to use it, as propaganda offered the promise of ensuring the proper functioning of an increasingly technologically complex society but simultaneously was antithetical to Democracy as it took away the ability of the populace to decide their governance. Eventually, the propagandists won out as it was believed Hitler (a master propagandist) could not be stopped unless equally effective propaganda was used by the Allies. Since that time, propaganda has gradually proliferated in our society, with much of it revolving around the idea we should "trust" whoever the currently anointed experts are. Governance in turn has become that expert class deciding what we should do and then commissioning a propaganda company public relations firm to ensure the public complies with their policy. Because of how effective this model is, I had largely given up on much of the Democratic process or many of the core issues I cared about ever improving. However, two major changes have upended the paradigm we’ve been stuck with for decades. The first was the creation of the internet and (due to its profitability) it becoming inseparably intertwined with every aspect of our lives. Because of this, an uncontrollable medium now exists which can allow compelling information to be freely distributed throughout society. The second was the unchecked greed of the ruling class (the propagandist form of government made it possible for them to keep taking more and more, so they did). This is important because while propaganda can make people believe truly remarkable things, once it diverges too far from reality (e.g., getting COVID repeatedly despite being vaccinated with a "95% effective" vaccine was a huge red-pill for many). Because of this, there is no longer a clear way to ensure the continued control of the masses, and as a result, those who have been in power for decades are now facing an existential threat to their power base. Note: All the above is discussed in more detail within this excellent article. If we want to reclaim our Democracy, it is critical we allow open and honest debate to occur. As the last few years have shown, we cannot have the "expert’s" narrative be shielded from all scrutiny, and as the internet has shown, the monopoly they used to hold over the truth is rapidly fading away. Conversely, I believe if the experts wish to regain the credibility they have lost, they must earn it by publicly defending the merits of their positions, and I believe as time moves forward, the expert class will see realize this too. Lastly, I want to thank each of you for your support of my work here and on Substack over the last year (you make much of it possible). The world is shifting quite rapidly (e.g., people are moving from the mass media to the independent media in droves) and I am quite hopeful 2024 will mark the point when our voice grows loud enough that we can begin to correct the terrible course of scientific apparatus has taken. Postscript: Peter Hotez "responded" to this article after it went viral. Because of this, I wrote a follow up to this piece which illustrated the most objectionable content in Hotez’s and showed how it is part of a much more nefarious PR campaign to prevent all dissent from the narrative being censored (e.g., when the WHO tried to push the next "emergency" vaccine on us). The follow up article can be read here. A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I'm grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD's work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

This extremely compelling video highlights some of the recent events and, more importantly, how the powers-that-be are reacting to them. It seems crystal clear that George Orwell and Aldus Huxley were partially correct in their writings. But the parts that they got wrong weren't too ambitious. They were too mild compared to the trajectory of the nation and the world.

Tom Smothers Tribute Jul 2021 Interview Rick Rubin with Paul McCartney (McCartney 123)

1 Shacking Up 2 Proper Parenting 3 Get the Gavel

1 Giles Martin 2 Tony King 3 Prudence Farrow 4 Rod Argent 5 Jane Seymour 6 Smokey Robinson 7 Ringo

More from this incredible lady Author and educator Ezola Foster gives a presentation on the left-wing control of government schools at the Endicott Estate October 1997. Mrs. Foster was the Vice Presidential running mate of Patrick Buchanan in 2000.

From the 1990s. This lady is incredible and sooooo right Full Transript below: Ezola Foster speaks about her trials and tribulations as a public school teacher. She also touches on leaders in the black community and how they go against America's founding principles. Ezola was teaching elementary school in 1965 in inner city Los Angeles when the first ESEA was passed during Johnson's "war on poverty." Replacing the proven reading of phonics with the unproven whole language caused illiteracy rates to soar. The Socialist Agenda Behind "Whole Language" http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews... What Parents Should Know About "Whole Language" and Other Pedagogical Nonsense http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews... Readingate: The 100-Year Coverup of Educational Malpractice http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews... Full Transcript 0:01 foreign [Music] 0:09 [Applause] to be around people that I can relate 0:15 with I'm usually arguing or debating when I make appearances so it's really wonderful to be here I started teaching 0:24 in 1963 at Watts David Starr Jordan High School and this 0:31 school has really rich history this is a school that was used for busing in Los 0:38 Angeles this was a school that started all of these social programs that we 0:45 have today after the 1965 Watts Riots and the Macomb commission came in and 0:53 decided that one of the causes of the rise was poor quality education and that 0:59 our poor minority our poor disadvantaged and our ghetto and our at-risk children 1:06 needed special programs now I say that because I am so happy that no one told 1:13 me when I was growing up poor that I was at risk and there's a reason that all of 1:20 these euphemisms are placed on our children and it's kind of funny because as I 1:25 think about all the euphemisms that are used I'm reminded of when Winston 1:31 Churchill came to America and a luncheon buffet was given in his honor at which 1:36 Fried Chicken was served and Mr Churchill went up for a second helping and he said may I have a breast 1:43 and his Hostess said oh no Mr Churchill in America it's either dark meat or 1:50 white meat so the next morning Mr Churchill sent his Hostess a beautiful 1:55 corsage with the note I'd be much obliged if you pinned this to your white 2:01 meat and this is the kind of thing that's happening in America these kind of 2:06 euphemisms the reason that these labels are put on our children is because the 2:12 government can then give more money to the schools and the schools can then incorporate more and more programs now 2:21 all of us know how well Phonics work so why is it the schools are not using 2:26 it well because so much money comes in that they experiment with our children 2:33 and that's where your whole language and all that looks uh same method that's 2:38 where it comes from as a matter of fact only recently our governor in California had to bribe the school bureaucracy 2:47 there by saying that if they use phonics he'll give them more money 2:54 and money is really the big problem we have here because the 1965 as a result 3:00 of the Macon condition we were given the elementary and secondary Education Act 3:06 this act is what we have today title one 3:11 chapter one the food program and I tell you these government schools they 3:18 started off Kenny Gordon was not early enough for them to take our children from us they then have child development 3:25 and preschool and of course they use tragedies among families to implement 3:31 even more of their socialist problems of course it was a tragedy that led to 3:37 the latchkey you know the latchkey laws and what did they say we need to keep 3:42 the schools open longer so the children would have a place to play or someone could watch them well if you 3:50 knew what was going on in your schools during the day in government schools you would not have your children there at 3:57 all now in the 33 years that I've been teaching I have seen many many many programs come in when I started in 1963 4:05 it was called values clarification kind of funny to me because my values 4:11 were very clear moral absolutes individual responsibilities civic duty 4:18 and so as I said in that teacher's meeting I kept wondering what do they mean values clarification 4:26 and like most teachers the program as is presented sounds good 4:32 and you don't really know what it means until after it has been implemented and 4:38 it sets in what values clarification meant was that our children were to 4:44 develop their own value system which means that they have a valueless system 4:50 and of course a year before I started teaching we had that 1962 congressional 4:57 act that took God out of our schools and the big lie that was used well we 5:04 have to separate school and religion we have to separate uh church and state and 5:09 this type of thing we know that that is not the reason that 5:15 God was taken out of our schools but it was more than just taking God out it was taking a sense of principles a set of a 5:22 sense of direction for our young children to direct their young lives 5:29 after values clarification I went on to see one program after the other we have 5:35 peer counseling where students are referred to a particular counselor who 5:43 is especially trained for this the students are referred by their teachers 5:50 for whatever reason that the child is not responding to the teacher maybe the 5:57 child has come to class red-eyed like I'm looking after my trip today and the 6:02 teacher assumes that the child is on drugs uh the child may sleep in class and the 6:09 teacher will assume that the child is having some kind of problems and then they are referred to the pure counseling 6:16 what the counselor does is ask them personal questions of what's going on in 6:21 the home and if there's any reason for a referral to Child Protective 6:29 Services that's where you find a lot of parents in a lot of homes that are being broken up from peer counseling we went 6:37 from one program to the other and of course you are familiar with outcome 6:42 based education what does that mean it simply means that the children will show 6:50 a certain Behavior and as a result of that behavior that's 6:57 acceptable to the schools the child will then be given a certificate because 7:03 they're going to do away with diplomas and that certificate will 7:09 allow them to work which gives us our school to work and school to careers 7:15 bill now that was just passed this past April but like many of these other 7:21 programs before it even gets to you it's already been decided 7:26 and that's true with your school boards one of the ways that I got involved in 7:32 um speaking out was in 1987 February of 87 the California State 7:40 Department of Education decided that they would begin teaching homosexuality in our Public Schools grades 7:47 kindergarten through 12. and so I organized a group of parents from Watts 7:53 we called ourselves black Americans for two reasons one we were all black and 7:58 two that was the way to get the media because at that time if you had black or Africa in front of your name they'd come 8:03 out and so as our group began to argue and we presented a testimony as to how 8:11 this is not what's in the best interest of our children it didn't matter because 8:16 as I said it was already decided so from that in 87 we now have coming 8:25 out day in our schools but even before then in in the mid 70s we have what's 8:32 called project 10 that was instituted in our schools now if this program is not 8:37 in public schools here believe me it is on its way I've been talking to small 8:44 districts on my tour and I'm finding out that all 8:49 of these programs that begin in the belly of the Beast Los Angeles Unified 8:54 School District the second largest District in the nation and then expressed throughout America 9:00 well project 10 is a homosexual recruitment program and it was started 9:08 by a lesbian high school counselor in Los Angeles who was entrusted with the 9:13 weekend care of a young student a weekend competition had an affair with a 9:18 girl and then decided from that that 10 percent of all of our students were homosexual and so therefore a counseling 9:26 program was was to be instituted it's not a counseling program it's a recruitment program and I'll tell you 9:34 how it works I had an experience with it now I must say here there are many many fine teachers out there there are many 9:41 good principals many times principals try to ignore some of these programs 9:46 because they know in their heart that it's wrong project 10 have been around as I said 9:52 since the mid 70s but at the particular school at which I was teaching uh past 9:58 11 years two years ago it became very popular on our campus Because 10:04 homosexuals became onto our staff and they promoted it and I happen to have 10:10 done a show that was entitled should homosexuals have the right to marry and raise children 10:15 and my students saw me on the show as they always do they want to talk about 10:20 it and so we took a few moments to talk about and they asked me how did I feel about project 10 and I told them well a 10:28 few days later the director of project 10 walked into my classroom and he said 10:34 he wanted to talk with me so I thought we would walk outside of the door have a 10:39 private conversation but he stopped me in the middle of the floor in front of my class and he said I understand you 10:44 said thus and so about project 10. I said yes I said that and I'll tell you 10:51 what else I said and I gave him my full opinion so when he walked out of the room the students applaud it and I said 10:59 why are you doing that you already know my feelings about project 10 and they said oh no Mrs Foster 11:05 we want you to know that we have to go to his classroom for our math classes 11:12 and on the wall in his classroom he has these huge pictures and posters of 11:18 half-naked men in sexually allowing positions some during your kissing and 11:23 it's so embarrassing we can't concentrate on our map I said have you told your parents well many of their 11:30 parents are here illegally and don't get involved instead have you told your other teachers 11:36 but other teachers tell us we must be tolerant so I went to the principal and he told 11:43 me to mind my own business now my students are my business whether they're here legally or not as long as they're 11:48 under my charge I'm going to treat them right so what I did I went to the room 11:54 to check for myself not only were the pictures up there but then he had copies 11:59 of homosexual papers in which they were advertising for young boys teenage boys 12:07 I could not get anywhere for getting these posters Off the Wall until I went to the media and brought the media in 12:14 and then the posters came down but I'm gone now so I'm sure they're up again 12:19 and the reason that you have this is because you have your gay and lesbian conditions on your school boards and in 12:27 your teachers unions and they are there to promote their political agenda and 12:33 now today we have what's called coming out day where teachers stand before their 12:39 classes Kenny Garden Kenny Garden through 12th grade announced that 12:45 they're homosexual they bring their mate in with them to talk about their lifestyle they wear t-shirts I'm not gay 12:52 my boyfriend is and they're actually encouraging our children to emulate a 12:58 very dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle you might ask where are the parents on 13:05 this well you know we have in our schools today what I call Professional parents 13:13 and many of your so-called inner city schools they have an office on campus 13:19 and they are there to take care of the complaints of good loving decent caring 13:26 parents these professional parents handle their complaints so that they can free the principal from 13:34 having to listen to it are they act for the school board and it used to be that the PTA was a 13:41 volunteer group of parents that would come in we have paid parents 13:47 some of them make even more than teachers and they are lobbyists and as I said earlier these programs are 13:55 already decided before the parents even feel the school board it doesn't matter if they feel the school boards they go 14:01 to these meetings and they want their voices to be heard doesn't matter how much they complain 14:07 it's already been decided and what the school boards will do if they see these 14:13 parents out there then they put put the item off of the agenda longer and longer 14:20 parents may get there at three o'clock because that's the time it's supposed to be heard nine o'clock at night they're 14:27 still waiting for them to hear it so they have all kind of strategies to undermine the parents 14:34 and of course there are many reasons that we have the ills and education that we have today 14:40 now it started long before I entered into the um the teaching profession 14:47 and we can thank the psychologists and psychiatrists with their experimental 14:53 programs on our children and whether it's Skinner or Dewey or Klondike their 14:59 theory was that man has no soul no conscious 15:05 and only react to stimuli and that is the way they have been 15:10 teaching and treating our children but since I have been in the school 15:17 system I blame political movements of the 60s for what's happening in our 15:22 schools today and I'm talking about the Chicano movement the homosexual movement the feminist 15:30 movement and the black movement now how have they impacted our schools your 15:36 Chicano movement now have us with an open border policy they have our schools overcrowded due to 15:44 Illegal immigration they have precious funding going mostly for bilingual 15:51 education that's the biggest funding gold pop there is and to tell you the truth that is why you heard of this 15:58 ridiculous notion Ebonics it was nothing more than about money 16:04 all that meant was that you see before Ebonics 16:10 black teachers and black students were considered Americans and they spoke 16:17 English so they couldn't dip their fingers into this bilingual gold part 16:23 well it was decided then that no we're not 16:29 black we're Africans and no we don't speak English we speak ebonics and as a 16:35 result they got the funding now I was State co-chair along with Senator Ray 16:41 Haynes from California to try to stop ebonics and I say that because Senator Haynes was white if I had to depend on a 16:50 black elected official to have helped me to stop this it would have been dead to 16:55 begin with and they did defeat it and they are now getting money for this ridiculous program that demeans black 17:03 children then you have your feminist movement and what have they given us 17:10 they now have abortion referrals coming from our Public Schools through these 17:16 so-called health clinics which are nothing more than sex clinics and by the way the latest to be 17:22 introduced for all of these programs is called Healthy Start just started in Los Angeles now doesn't 17:29 that sound good A Healthy Start who would not want a healthy start 17:34 what that means now is that we're going to have full-time nurses and full-time doctors on our school campuses so your 17:42 children won't have to tell you that they have an arrow disease or any other problems everything will be taken care 17:48 of right there at school and also they are now setting it up 17:54 where all of the social services agencies are on campus so that if these parents are not yet signed up for a 18:01 social program they will get it and I don't know how many of you have these food programs in your um school lunch 18:08 programs they're called even though they're serving them breakfast as well as lunch and watch out they'll be 18:13 serving them dinner too before it's over with but all of this these lunch 18:18 programs you know when it started out with that 1965 Elementary and secondary 18:24 Education Act it was supposedly because poor children couldn't learn because 18:32 they were hungry if that's not the most insulting thing about poor you know 18:39 being one who grew up poor let me tell you something being poor means your pockets are empty not your mind 18:47 poor children can be trained and educated as well as any other 18:52 if they're taught properly but again all of this was to get the government more and more involved and to 19:00 undermine the parents now I know that your billery 19:05 Administration has already told you that it takes a village to raise a child 19:13 it takes parents whose authority is not undermined by mental and socialist 19:19 government as what we have now in Washington that's what it takes 19:30 and so we have had such a kind of movement and the feminist movement and 19:36 of course the homosexual movement and I've already told you how much influence they have now in our public schools and 19:42 not only that throughout our society whoever would have thought that we would have to 19:48 define marriage and this is what they've done to us 19:54 but most importantly and the one that really really irks me more than any 20:00 others is the black movement and isn't it ironic that the very group 20:07 of people who were brought to America as slaves are being used today to enslave 20:13 all of Americans now that really hurts me being a member of that race and seeing how this 20:21 happened now I have to tell you I really don't remember going from being colored to 20:26 negro but I grew up in the 40s and 50s as a negro it wasn't anything 20:32 denigrating to us all it meant was that our ancestors were brought to America through the slave trade from Africa 20:39 so we didn't think anything NATO we still looked forward to the American dream and America was home to us 20:47 we thank them for coming over here I know I do I'm sorry how they came here but I thank God that they did come 20:53 there's no way in the world I would want to be any place on the African continent today which is something else 21:01 here you have our young children being told that they're African-Americans and 21:06 you ask them what country they're from and they don't even know Africa is a continent and not a country 21:12 and that's the kind of Lies that's going on in our government schools today and 21:18 is being promoted by these political groups because all of these groups I mentioned to you all work together 21:24 they support each other if they're having a rally they all come or if they are standing together on an 21:31 issue whatever the issue may be affirmative action illegal immigration doesn't matter they all coalesce as one 21:39 now when I talk about black leaders which is what I'm going to discuss because I want you to know why you have 21:46 multiculturalism and diversity in our schools today and why you have 21:51 corporations that's demanding that their workers uh learn about diversity 21:58 which is so ridiculous I've been on this Earth more than half a century and as long as I've been in America it's always 22:04 been diverse so I've been wondering what do they mean by that but what they mean is that they want to divide us 22:11 they want to divide America and keep Americans hating each other 22:18 and they're teaching our children hatred and disdain for America by teaching them 22:24 every other culture but their own there's only one culture that should be 22:30 taught in American schools and that's American culture 22:38 at any rate growing up as a negro you know we really didn't have a kind of 22:44 hatred that I see today I can remember in high school like high school children 22:49 today will maybe go to the mall and win those shop well we would leave our high 22:55 school and we go downtown to the big expensive stores and Windows shop and 23:01 there you have the colored only and the white only drinking fountains and I can remember we well you know in 23:08 high school your little Rebels anyway so we would drink from the white fountain and the sales clerks would say now you 23:14 know you're supposed to drink colored water and we say we wanted colored water we drink Kool-Aid and they would laugh 23:22 we'd all laugh about it but if you would listen to the Black leaders today you 23:27 would think we were Lynch for not drinking out of the colored only Fountain and I'm saying that to make the 23:32 point that even though you had laws that separated the people 23:39 segregation Jim Crow laws the people themselves did not hate each other the 23:45 way our children are being taught to hate other races today and that is the difference and that's how I grew up as a 23:52 negro but then when I was leaving college and then in the 60s our name was 23:57 changed to Black Americans and the reason for that that was the height of the black political movement 24:04 and so all of us then were to show that we acted as one whether we were colored 24:11 or negro or black so from then on we became known as black Americans 24:16 well then when the media began to cover the fight against apartheid in South 24:22 Africa the Reverend ain't Jesse Jackson called the press conference and told the 24:27 media from non refer to us as African Americans that's how we became 24:33 African-Americans and the purpose for that was so that all of us would be in 24:39 Goose step with the African National Congress simple as that 24:45 but again look at what it has done to our children and in our schools 24:52 and some of our public schools and these so-called inner city schools or minority 24:57 schools you would be hard-pressed to find Old Glory flying in the classroom at all 25:04 but you will see foreign Flags and for us they make up a flag 25:10 and they call it an African-American flag they make up an African-American Pledge 25:16 of Allegiance they make up a culture and I'm talking about Kwanzaa 25:23 a made-up culture but it's been so accepted with by so 25:29 many people even Texaco got in trouble for not recognizing it as a legal holiday for their employers 25:37 totally made up I worked with the gods of school who made it up at the time in the 60s he formed an 25:44 organization called U.S United slaves he and his United slaves had a shootout 25:50 with the black panthers in the cafeteria of UCLA in which two people were killed 25:55 later he was sentenced for torturing two of his female followers 26:00 he resurfaced changed his name now he's head of the black studies Department in 26:07 one of our major universities in California sprue and more hatred and you know when we talk about these 26:15 black history classes and African-American studies that's nothing more than again promoting 26:22 hatred and there's not very much truth as any at all in some of the studies that they 26:29 give these young people but how do we get to all of this 26:37 now you will hear me talk about the black leaders tonight and I want you to know exactly who I'm talking about I'm 26:44 talking about the NAACP the Urban League the southern Christian 26:50 leadership conference the Congressional Black Caucus the Reverend ain't Jackson 26:56 and his group and Calypso Lloyd and his Nation of Islam now people kind of like 27:02 when I say Calypso Lloyd but he is a Calypso singer-turned Muslim minister 27:08 and so he he knows how to charm people he knows how to entertain people and 27:14 once he snares them in he begins to sprue his hatred and he's already told us he wants a 27:20 separate nation a separate state in America and I tell you with this biller 27:27 Administration giving away so much of what we have to the United Nations I wouldn't be surprised if we woke up one 27:32 morning he would give one of our Estates away because he loves to play that race card Clinton plays the race card better 27:38 than anyone I've seen now the South African-American flag 27:46 you may have seen it if you watch the militia Man March back in 1995 in our 27:51 nation's capital I know you may think it was the Million Man March but it was the militia Man March what it was you see 28:00 when when Jackson brought Farrakhan to prominence in 84. 28:06 Farrakhan made the statement there's going to be a race war in America and young black gang members will be used 28:13 nobody said anything I was at the same time that Jackson 28:18 offended uh the Jews and so of course the Jewish leaders just 28:25 jumped right on that issue but not one black organization said anything when 28:31 Farrakhan said that few months later in early 1985 Libya's 28:36 Gaddafi gave Farrakhan 5 million dollars with that money from 1985 to 1995 28:46 Farrakhan bought out forums and Convention centers throughout America to 28:51 sprue his hatred and then he showed what that million dollars five million 28:59 dollars bought by having his Million Man March I happen to have been sitting in CNN 29:06 Studios at the time that they covered this March and while I was waiting to be interviewed Leon Harris was CNN of CNN 29:13 interviewed a and a blood and there they were with their caps the common 29:20 Revolution the Aurora Uprising next time 29:25 and they told Leon Harris the reason we did what we did to our community 29:31 is because of lack of leadership and that's why we're here for Minister Farrakhan ladies and gentlemen let me 29:38 tell you what these little hoodlums did to the community they beat maim and kill innocent 29:46 children besides selling drugs to them some of these children were killed 29:53 excuse me sitting in their own living rooms watching television that's what they did and who were their 30:01 leaders as they did this the most powerful politician in the 30:06 state of California at the time some say even more than the governor Willie Brown black 30:12 their congressional representative at the time Augustus Hawkins black they're 30:18 a state senator black their State Assembly representative murky Waters 30:24 known to you as Maxine their mayor Tom Bradley 30:31 their city council representative have been on the council so long he was known as the emperor now with all of that 30:39 leadership over Watson South Central Los Angeles you would think we'd have the closest 30:45 knit families the highest achieving schools and the 30:51 safest streets no what we had we had U.S news and World 30:58 Report time Newsweek magazine all writing about us because we were known as The Killing Fields 31:05 the war zone this is Beirut USA and here were these gangsters who 31:13 terrorize the community talking about lack of leadership it's the wrong kind of leadership that's 31:20 really what it was and so what they're doing is that 31:25 they're turning children against each other there's hardly a month goes by in Los Angeles there's not a fight between 31:31 blacks and whites or or blacks and Mexicans or you name it 31:36 they are fighting because they're being taught all of this hatred and this is the problems that that we're 31:43 having in our in our government schools now when I talk about all of these uh 31:50 political movements again recognize that they are in the schools 31:55 they're ingrained they're not going anyplace so that's why we need to take our 32:02 children out if they are in there and I compliment those of you who are homeschooling those of you who have your 32:09 children in private schools and Christian schools because your children will be our hope for tomorrow 32:17 now I know that um many times I'm asked gee all of this is so horrible what are 32:25 we gonna do what we need to do we need to recognize that all of these 32:32 programs that's causing the problems that we're facing in our schools today come from the United Nations education 32:41 scientific and cultural organization UNESCO 32:47 and as long as we remain in the United Nations we will continue to go downhill 32:52 until they have totally controlled us and we're not too far away from that now I tell my atheist friends you know if we 33:00 survive Bill Clinton you've got to believe there's a God 33:05 I believe they do 33:11 now some people may think well you know I'm saying this because of political 33:17 affiliation when I became 21 which was voting age at 33:22 the time I registered and became an active Democrat well how could I not 33:27 everybody in my community we're Democrats I that's all I knew sort of 33:33 reminds me of the little girl who was watching her mother prepare chicken for roasting and she asked her mother she 33:40 says mom why do you cut the Wings off the chicken before you put it in the pot and her mother said oh 33:47 I saw my mother do it so I just do it and so the little girl went to her 33:52 grandmother and she says grandmom I asked mother why she cuts the Wings off the chicken before she puts it in 33:59 the pot and she said she does it because she saw you do it and the grandmother said well 34:04 I don't know my mother did it so I did it so fortunately for the little girl 34:09 her great grandmother was still alive and she went to her and she asked her 34:15 and she said you know I've asked my mom I've asked grandmom and they told me why 34:20 they didn't why did you did you do it and her great grandmother looked at her and she says 34:26 well the pot was too small and that's the only way I could get the chicken to fit 34:31 well you know that's how I was with us Democrats at the time everyone in the community our family were all Democrats 34:38 and so we just did it because they did it but after 17 years in the Democrat Party 34:45 I realized that they they did not represent my strong belief in God my strong belief in 34:53 America my strong belief in family so I switched parties well after 17 years in the Republican 35:01 party I have to tell you today I'm a conservative without a party and that's unfortunate 35:10 but if we really want to take care of our problems if we want America to 35:16 remain as strong as she is free then what we need to do is get out of the 35:22 United Nations because this is where all of these policies and and all of our 35:28 problems are coming from and right now our children in some schools and some of 35:36 these government schools like I told you they don't say the Pledge of Allegiance they don't have Old 35:42 Glory they don't say the pledge of allegiance to America and I think that's because the 35:48 government May find out that the children in Sam The 35:54 Pledge will realize America is a republic not a democracy and so that's 36:00 one of the reasons they have taken away the Pledge of Allegiance because they are teaching our children that we're a 36:06 democracy and our children don't know the difference our children are not being taught the 36:13 Declaration of Independence and again the children might then 36:18 realize that they are entitled to three basic rights life liberty pursuit of 36:24 happiness or property that's all and the government don't want them to know that 36:30 not your government schools because they have the children think that their 36:35 rights are for taxpayers to feed them clothe 36:40 them educate them medicate them the whole bit and of course don't 36:46 mention the constitution in our schools because then our children may realize 36:52 that we have an executive branch and a Judiciary this and a congress that's 36:58 totally ignoring our constitution so these are the reasons that this these 37:05 kind of teachings have been denied our children and I'll tell you I um I really can see 37:15 the results of this as I do some of these talk shows I happen to have done a talk show in which the audience were 37:23 mostly uh blinds and one young man called in and identified himself as such 37:28 and said that he was 30 years old and he wanted to take exception to a comment 37:33 that I had made and what I said was that I believe all of us would be a lot 37:39 better off if we simply followed two important documents the Bible and the Constitution and he 37:47 called in so irate he said now little sister and when they call me little 37:52 sister I know I'm in for bashing them he said how can you say that we aren't 37:58 even mentioning the Constitution and I said I don't know if there's any 38:03 race of people mentioning the Constitution but if there is anyone racing glad it is us 38:09 because of the two amendments that were introduced of the Constitution because of us and 38:16 then he says well you know the Constitution that part about us voting changes every 15 years 38:24 where do they get this information and if because the what's going on in 38:31 our schools it's just like the outcome-based education they're not taught right from wrong if 38:39 they don't know two and two is four perhaps they'll figure it out before they graduate because the teacher will 38:45 not dare hurt their self-esteem by telling them that they're wrong and that 38:50 and correcting them and of the the people I know with the highest self-esteem are those who know 38:57 how to read write and calculate so it's not about teaching our children 39:03 these things that are important to them it's all about what feels good to them and all about as long as they can reach 39:11 certain behaviors then fine now this school to Works bill as you 39:16 know will do away with diplomas and give our children certificates which will allow them to work and this will be true 39:23 not only for our children but for everyone and this is reaching into our private schools and our home schools 39:30 also and that's what's so very dangerous because we're not only fighting School 39:35 boards we're fighting legislations legislators also and again these groups 39:42 they get themselves into these positions where they can change laws or they can 39:48 make laws to accommodate their political agenda and we have to be aware of this 39:55 and you know with all that I've said people will say well what's the answer and the answer is what I've said get us 40:02 out of the United Nations now how can we do this Congressman Ron Paul our hero 40:09 introduced the bill to get us out of the United Nations and look at the number of 40:15 votes he got twice the amount that we had received before when this bill was 40:21 was introduced next year in 1998 we should all make it 40:28 a point that any candidate we elect to Congress 40:34 will make it top priority to get us out of the United Nations and then then we 40:41 can get back to work and strengthening our country [Applause] 40:49 you know I have to go back to uh the black leaders because they are having 40:55 such an impact on on America and I remember in 1986 Senator hire cars 41:05 sent me an article from a San Francisco paper and it was entitled why worry about Farrakhan and he attached a little 41:12 note izola I do worry now some of you may only remember Senator hire Cara for sleeping incentive 41:21 hearings but when I'm reminded of that I think of the time that when Edward 41:28 Everett Hale was chaplain of the Senate and someone asked him Dr Hale do you 41:34 ever pray for the Senators and Dr Hale responded no I look at the Senators and 41:39 I pray for the people and but I have to agree that we should 41:46 worry because these groups are acting as one and they're acting to divide America and 41:53 you were talking about one state I was in Lafayette Louisiana this two Sundays 41:59 ago October the 19th two days before I arrived that Friday and it was all on the news that weekend 42:07 the NAACP leader there had appeared before the city council because the 42:13 blacks want to secede from the northern part of Lafayette they want their own 42:19 black section now you have to wonder here is the group 42:25 that push for integration and now they want separation 42:32 when I was a junior in high school I remember that the NAACP had filed a 42:40 lawsuit to integrate the schools and it worked so the Texas legislature 42:46 said well okay we have Houston college for negro right here a few blocks away 42:53 well miles at that time we had the University of Houston and so 42:59 the Texas state legislature said well okay we'll merge the two schools and make it one large University 43:05 the NAACP said oh no we want to keep our black school so Houston college for 43:12 Negroes became Texas Southern University and that is where I got my first degree 43:18 I took my husband back there in 1990 I believe it was and I wanted him to see 43:24 where I had attended School Texas Southern University has grown so 43:30 close University of Houston have grown so close that they put up a brick wall in 43:37 the middle of the street so they couldn't get any closer Now isn't that a sad commentary but 43:44 that's how powerful these black leaders have become and I am so so disheartened 43:54 when I heard the Christian Coalition The Promise Keepers apologizing for slavery 44:02 let me tell you what that's all about folks there's a guilt feeling being put on 44:07 America and the reason is there's a bill floating around it comes 44:14 up and then they figure it's not time and so it's still floating in Congress call reparations for slavery 44:23 and so as soon as this guilt feeling has been put all across America 44:29 then it'll be time to pass the bill now let me tell you they're talking 44:34 about a million dollars for everyone whose ancestor or anyone that have negro blood in them 44:41 would be surprised of the number of people that will end up with negro blood for a million dollars 44:47 yeah but this is how crazy it has become and we do have hope because 44:56 Congress is still the people's house and this is really great times when you 45:02 look at it we have an opportunity to show the type of pioneered spirits of 45:07 our founding fathers we have an opportunity to be bold and to come 45:12 together and to fight for this nation of ours 45:18 now I hear people say well you know we have to do it incrementally hmm no 45:25 they have treated us like frogs and boiling water but we have got to jump out immediately 45:32 and turn around and say no more this is our country it's an independent nation 45:40 and this is how we want to keep it there is no hope for Education once we 45:46 get out of UNESCO get UNESCO out then we get rid of the Department of Education 45:51 get rid of the Nea don't fund these things and they will go away 45:57 but you know what I'm really disgusted at all of these big corporations and the businessmen that's allowing this to 46:05 happen that's sponsoring they're suspending all of this money these groups are well organized well funded 46:13 I I asked today you know where all of the big time millionaire Republicans and 46:20 all of them with money and they're practically given to the same groups and so these These are really big 46:28 problems for us but you know what we still 46:33 are strong enough as long as we do not let ourselves be 46:39 separated by Race by class or by any other means 46:44 because first and foremost we are Americans and this is still his favorite land and 46:52 when I say God I'm not talking about the God that was used by Farrakhan when he told the 46:59 people in Iran that God will give Muslims the honor of destroying America 47:05 I'm talking about the God that is known through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 47:11 who gave us this great country and I don't think he's going to let us 47:17 you lose it but we've got to turn to him and we've got to turn to each other and 47:23 we've got to think with our heads not our hearts and stop feeling guilty it 47:28 takes all of us working together and I'm so happy to to um to be with you tonight and I just 47:35 want to end by saying even though I'm on a speaking tour for the John Birch 47:40 Society that doesn't mean that I have to be a member of John verse Society but I am 47:48 and a very proud member at that and it was really funny because when I was in 47:53 Cleveland I was doing a radio talk show and again it was predominantly black audience and 47:59 this guy called in and he said how could a black woman like you be a member of 48:04 that Klu Klux Klan organization and I started to tell him well I'm the grand Dragoness but of course I didn't because 48:11 he probably wouldn't have taken it as a joke and I asked him and I said well what do you know about John versus 48:17 society and he says well I heard and I heard everything was I heard so I gave him the number to call 1-800 JBS usa1 48:27 and get the correct information but you know the kind of name calling that's 48:34 going on that's been going on of course I heard all of these names too racist 48:40 organization right wing organization and it was kind of funny because when I 48:45 thought back I remember when we first started off as black Americans for Family Values 48:52 the media would refer to us as a civil rights organization but the minute we 48:58 dropped the hyphen once we got established and we became Americans for 49:03 family values then we were referred to as a right wing bigoted organization and 49:10 when I was doing debates for Proposition 187 fighting against illegal immigration 49:17 during the debates with the NAACP and the Urban League representatives there 49:23 they never once used African-American everything was people of color that's 49:29 how they referred as that's the next name change on the horizon for us by the way but the thing is that I was called a 49:37 white supremacist and I thought that takes the cake what else can they call me and I knew then there there must have 49:44 been some really good things that the John birth Society is doing to be called all of those names but I really didn't 49:51 think very much about it until I happened to have appeared on Larry King live and a Gentleman Dave Jorgensen from 49:57 Salt Lake City Utah called and got my husband on the telephone and turned out they were Kindred Souls 50:04 they must have talked for about an hour and then my husband said oh well you're going to Utah you're going to speak for at this rally God country and family and 50:12 so forth and we met Dave and his family wonderful people and he took us on a tour of the Mormon Temple because they 50:19 are Mormons and then as Dave was taking us to the airport he said um I want you to read this you 50:26 know how you verses do you start giving us all this material to read books and magazines and so forth 50:32 but my husband and I just kind of glanced through we didn't really read like we should have and we just went on 50:39 and then I had a chance to do a tour a northern California tour for the society and I 50:46 met so many wonderful people minorities of all kind blacks Mexicans 50:54 uh Jews you name it all people of different religions but they all had one 51:00 thing in common the love for America and the love of God and so I was impressed 51:07 with that but my husband is not the kind to really get involved in organizations because we have been courted by so many 51:15 organizations in the many years that we've been out here fighting but we found they were all eat meet and Retreat 51:21 organizations and we didn't have that kind of time and then we noticed how the 51:26 John verse Society educates the public you don't even have to be a member to get their trim magazine to find out how 51:34 your representatives are voting now people talk all the time about the apathy of Voters and why they keep 51:41 putting the same people in well if you have a candidate that comes in and tell you that you know all of you 51:48 will have a chicken in your pot you're going to vote for them because you want the chicken but if you don't really pay 51:53 attention to what's going on and that's what I liked about the society because they put out information 52:00 whether or not your representative is following the constitution in his vote 52:05 so we were impressed with that and then finally we had a chance to visit again with Dave and his family and 52:12 this time Dave was really smart he didn't trust us to read anything he left really early for the airport that we sat 52:19 at this park bench and he had this box of material and he answered all of our 52:24 questions and we read right there with him and when we got back home my husband and I decided and we became John first 52:31 members in November of 1996. and I have to tell you this my husband is tall dark 52:37 and handsome bald head you would think he's one of those nation of his and Muslims if you saw him and you should 52:43 see him when he walks through awesome South Central where his John Birch Society shirt on everyone's oh 52:51 and they won't dare say anything to him I mean he grew up there and he knows all of the crooks too and they know him and 52:57 he's pretty tough so at any rate I just wanted to say this to you because a week before I came here 53:03 I spoke to a republican women group in Leisure World and there was a lady who 53:09 came up after us and she talked with me had a really interesting background she had worked with the FBI and undercover 53:15 for them CIA and so forth and she was complimenting me on everything that I had said but then she said to me you 53:22 know honey if I were you I wouldn't tell people I'm a member of the John first society and I said well you know what if 53:31 I were ashamed of the organization I wouldn't be a member of it I'm very proud and I want the world to know it 53:37 and I'm so happy to be here with you and again thank you very very much [Applause]