Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 26, 2022 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

01:40:09

Situation Update, Oct 26, 2022 - The vaccine Berlin Wall is finally being TORN DOWN

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the situation update for Wednesday, October 26th, 2022.
	I'm Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
	Thank you for joining me.
	It's always a pleasure to be able to share news with you.
	I've got a lot of intel today, some big intel about the government purchasing a lot of radiological decontamination equipment.
	Got intel about crop failures being projected across the Southern Hemisphere, even as much as 40 to 50 percent crop losses in the Southern Hemisphere.
	It's been big breaking news about the New York City vaccine mandate being overturned and many other stories as well.
	So we're going to return to more of the normal format today with headlines and so on.
	But I do have an update for you about the big breaking story from yesterday, which involved the Numana Company.
	And as you know from listening to the podcast yesterday, the Numana Company has for about five years been fraudulently marketing their so-called organic family pack product by falsely claiming that it's been heavy metals tested by the Numana Company has for about five years been fraudulently marketing And that it is Health Ranger approved and that it is pesticide tested by my lab.
	And so, you know, that story broke big yesterday and a lot of people were shocked.
	But I did receive some criticism from our own listeners about that.
	I want to share that with you and respond to that because I actually agree with it.
	And the criticism is, why did I wait so long to go public with that story?
	Because, well, it has been years that that's been going on.
	They've been using my name fraudulently.
	Even after we multiple times requested that they pull my name off and pull our artwork and stop claiming that we're doing heavy metals testing for them because they never submitted samples after the original formulations and so on.
	So why did I wait so long to do that?
	Here's the simple answer.
	Number one, I don't leap into conflict.
	I don't have a knee-jerk reaction into anything to say, you know, right at first, like, you know, how dare you or whatever.
	So if anybody is in conflict with my business or myself, I give them multiple opportunities to do the right thing.
	And that's what we did with Numana, year after year, time after time, email after email, and so on.
	Gave them the opportunity, do the right thing.
	Stop using my name, right?
	Stop using our logos and badges and claims on your products and your website and your marketing materials and so on.
	Just stop using it.
	We asked them over and over again.
	They failed to do that over and over again.
	But I didn't want to leap into any kind of public airing of that issue at the time until I had given them ample opportunities to do the right thing.
	And that's my philosophy with everybody.
	I will take a lot of abuse, actually, from a lot of people.
	And I have.
	Without...
	Going public with the issue.
	And the other thing is I don't want to bother you with small things that I think are going to be able to be resolved because there's a lot of smaller issues in business that do get resolved or that sometimes...
	You might have a contract with somebody and then they fail to fulfill their end for a while, but then they catch up.
	Maybe they were just in trouble for a while.
	So I give people the benefit of the doubt.
	And the other thing that was happening just recently that I do need to share with you, and you may be kind of shocked at this, but as I was getting ready to publish that article, just in the last few days, I was getting a lot of pressure.
	From within the industry to silence myself.
	I was being told that I should not go public with that.
	And I was being told that by people who were saying that if you go public with this, you're going to hurt the preparedness and survival industry.
	And my answer was, I'm not hurting the industry.
	I didn't do this.
	Numana hurt themselves.
	And whatever the fallout is for the industry is on them, not me.
	I'm not hurting the industry.
	In fact, and as you know, I spoke with my spiritual advisor on all of this at some length.
	In fact, I do more harm if I stay silent than In fact, he texted me after he heard my podcast yesterday, and I want to read to you just some of what he said.
	Quote, And way too many people have done that.
	Frankly.
	So there's no such thing as a self-repairing conscience.
	When you break it, it's a super dangerous condition.
	You can get really lost to never know it.
	So doing the right thing is what is necessary for society to prosper.
	Do the right thing.
	And we live in a society where people are always asking the question like, who will take a stand against things that are wrong?
	You know, who will take a stand against corruption or fraud or misrepresentation?
	Who will take a stand?
	Well, as you know, we take the stand.
	We took a stand.
	I mean, that's what we did.
	I took the stand against what was wrong, to tell the truth.
	And...
	You know, there's a cost associated with that.
	There is a cost.
	And I'm willing to pay that price in order to tell the truth because I put a much higher value on the truth, you see, and on my own conscience and on doing what's right.
	In fact, I heard Gregory Manorino say, Who's on Brighton.com, by the way, and he does two updates a day, usually one in the morning because he's a Wall Street guy.
	Well, he's more like an anti-Wall Street guy, actually, or certainly an anti-Fed guy.
	But he talks about finance and investing, what's happening in the markets and so on.
	So Gregory Manorino introduced something that I really like.
	He said, look, I have a new club or a new movement that you can be part of.
	And he called it Emanon, which is simply no name backwards.
	I don't know why he chose that.
	But if you spell out no name backwards, it's Emanon.
	So anyway, that's what he came up with.
	He said there's only one requirement to join the Emanon club.
	And you simply have to recite the phrase that I will do good in the world.
	And that's it.
	You're in the club.
	Emanon.
	And he was asking people to share that, so I'm happy to share that with you.
	Because I think he's got a really good point.
	What if we went through the world each day asking, what can I do that's good today?
	What is right?
	How do we stand up against things that are wrong?
	Shouldn't we call out deception?
	Shouldn't we expose corruption?
	And shouldn't we reward those who do things that are good?
	And shouldn't we do good ourselves?
	And it doesn't even have to be, it's not a religion.
	It's just a philosophy.
	Do good in the world every day, even if it's small, but do something good.
	Have you ever been in a grocery store and there's somebody in line in front of you who's buying some groceries and they look pitiful and you feel kind of sorry for them?
	And, but they're trying to buy groceries and they're digging through, often it's a woman, I've noticed in this situation, they're digging through, she's digging through her purse trying to find enough money to pay the groceries and she's like, you know, $10 short or something.
	And you can tell, looking at her, she's handed over everything except about $10, and she's starting to freak out, starting to panic.
	Have you ever just said, because I've done this, have you ever said, hey, guess what?
	I've got you covered.
	Here's $10 for your groceries.
	Have you ever done that?
	Because I've done that multiple times.
	And the reactions, it's so funny because there's a reaction from the person that you're giving the money to, but then there's the reaction from the cashier, which is actually the most interesting reaction.
	Because anyway, the person that you're giving it to is usually...
	Like, predictably, overwhelmingly, you know, gracious.
	It's, oh my god, thank you so much.
	Oh my god, you're so kind.
	This kind of thing.
	But the real fun reaction is from the cashier, because the cashiers, their eyes get really big, and they're like, what the heck?
	Somebody's paying for somebody else's groceries?
	This is crazy!
	You know, that kind of reaction.
	That alone is worth $10, by the way.
	So, try this.
	At a grocery store.
	Somebody's short $10, or $5, or $20, or whatever.
	If you can afford it, Just give them the money and watch what happens.
	It's an incredible lesson and it only costs you $10.
	But it's just, you know, another example of doing good in the world.
	And I don't mean handing $10 out to some street beggar person who's like, you know, I'm hungry.
	Can I have $10 for groceries?
	Because that's just going to go to drugs, right?
	No.
	So I'm talking about a scenario where you know they're buying groceries because they're doing it right in front of you.
	So watch that and find other examples of what you can do that's good in the world.
	Now, the reason it's hard to do good in some scenarios is because there's a cost associated with it.
	Most people aren't willing to pay the cost to do what is right.
	And you know this just by watching people through the whole COVID fiasco.
	Why did so many people go along with the vaccines or the masks or vaccinating children?
	Why do so many people go along with genitalia mutilations of children today?
	Why?
	Because the cost of speaking out against the insanity is too high for them to bear.
	There's a cost to say, wait a second, you know, gender mutilations of children is wrong.
	It's evil.
	It's satanic.
	If you say that, you will be deplatformed from every major platform.
	You will be called transphobic, which is the LGBT equivalent of Jewish groups claiming anti-Semitism, by the way.
	It's an interesting parallel because you're not allowed to criticize transgenders in society today, just as you're never allowed to criticize Jews, which is something that Kanye is finding out.
	Kanye, or Ye, as he now goes, has been dropped by Adidas because of his comments saying, Where he was in an interview, was it with David Schwimmer or somebody?
	Anyway, Kanye said that he could say all kinds of anti-Semitic bleep stuff and that he couldn't be canceled by Adidas.
	Well, it turns out he can be canceled by Adidas and he just got canceled.
	Now, perhaps that's not an example of courageous, doing good, speaking truth to power, necessarily.
	I mean, that's just Kanye kind of rambling is what it sounded like to me.
	I don't know what he was thinking at that moment.
	But Adidas canceled him, and Adidas, well, the Kanye brand was accounting for 8% of Adidas' sales.
	And did you know Adidas was founded in Germany by former Nazis?
	Did you know that?
	They're founded by Nazis.
	And then they de-platformed Kanye for talking about Jews.
	And then they say that he violently threatened Jews because he said he's going to go, quote, DEFCON 3.
	And he probably meant to say DEFCON, which is defense condition.
	You know how the nuclear thing, the nuclear hierarchy of posture is DEFCON, you know, defensive condition?
	And I think DEFCON 3 is kind of the medium level.
	And then I think Kanye said that he was going to go DEFCON, like as in you die.
	DEFCON 3 on, I guess, the Jewish community or something, whatever he said.
	And then that was immediately like, oh my God, he just threatened to kill Jews, right?
	So, again, that's a bad example.
	It's a tangential issue, but it's a reminder that there is a heavy price for uttering any kind of words that the establishment doesn't want to hear.
	And not that I'm endorsing those words, of course, I do not.
	I abhor any hatred towards any ethnic group just simply by the definition of their ethnicity, whether it's Jewish people or other white people, right, or black people or Asian people or anyone.
	I abhor, I denounce ethnic hatred.
	That is off the table.
	However, I fully support speaking out about corruption, to expose corruption, to expose fraud, to expose deception, wherever it may be found in the media or in culture or in government or corporations or wherever.
	And there is a cost associated with speaking the truth about those things.
	There's a huge cost.
	I mean, look at that journalist, Meek.
	What was his first name?
	Something Gordon Meek, who has vanished because he got too close to some of these issues, tracing the kickbacks of money through Ukraine back to the Democrat Party in the United States to run vote rigging operations, which is all about bribery and paying off mules and things like that.
	They gotta have a, you know, like a cash pool for bribery.
	Well, where does that money come from?
	Comes back from Ukraine as part of the Ukraine weapons programs, you know, the funding for Ukraine.
	That doesn't go to Ukrainian people or Ukrainian soldiers, most of it.
	It comes back in the form of kickbacks and corruption to be used by the Democrat Party to rig elections, among other things.
	So, Meek has not been heard from.
	And I don't know where he is either.
	But it's dangerous to tell the truth in society today.
	So when we do decide to tell the truth, it matters.
	It's a big deal.
	And I'm glad that you recognize that.
	I appreciate your support.
	I know that you know that when I stand up and tell the truth about something like this, that I'm doing so with your support, because I know you recognize how difficult it is to do that today.
	We live in a world of lies, and everybody wants people to stay silent.
	Don't tell the truth.
	Just keep the lie going, you know?
	And I refuse to do that.
	Just flat out refuse to do that.
	Which is probably one of the reasons why you enjoy tuning into these podcasts.
	I just have zero tolerance for lies.
	Just zero.
	All right, now I want to shift gears and get into some of the news headlines and analysis of world events.
	There is a lot going on.
	Just to give you a heads up, we've got an interview coming up today with Mr.
	William Kirk, who is...
	Well, he's a criminal defense attorney on gun issues, self-defense shooting issues, gun regulations, ATF issues, and he runs WashingtonGunLaw.com.
	And I've seen him on some online videos.
	He's very knowledgeable.
	And I thought that we would invite him on to ask him about what's going to happen with ATF rules, because I know many of you listening to this are armed and many of you have armed braces and the ATF is trying to outlaw those armed braces.
	So what's going to happen with that?
	We will talk to Mr. Curry.
	Kirk here in a few minutes about that issue.
	Okay, moving on to the intel.
	So right now, the United States government is purchasing many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment for radiological events, such as dirty bombs, nuclear war, fallout, things like that.
	They're buying decontamination equipment, positive pressure tents, showers, blowers, body suits, all kinds of things like that.
	There's also something being purchased in very large quantities called M8 paper.
	You're familiar with M8 paper?
	So M8 paper, and there's also something called M9 paper.
	These papers are chemical indicators of exposure to, well, chemical warfare agents and nerve agents and things like that.
	I don't know if M8 is limited to...
	I think it's like nerve gas type of chemicals.
	I think that's what it's focused on.
	I'm not 100% sure.
	But it's in the realm of chemical weapons.
	So the United States government is...
	Well, stockpiling radiological equipment and nerve agent or chemical warfare type of detection equipment at the same time.
	Why do you think they're doing that?
	Could it be because they know they're about to start a war with Russia?
	Yes, that seems very likely and a little concerning as well.
	But remember when China, right, sort of the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, China was buying up all the PPE equipment, right, or the PPE, personal protection equipment, the body suits and the masks and the Tyvek suits and the latex gloves and everything that would be in short supply related to COVID. Why was China doing that?
	Because they knew what was coming because they built it, you know, and they released it.
	On America, no less.
	And they built it with the help of certain elements of America as well.
	As we know, EcoHealth Alliance and Fauci and the NIH and NIAID and whatever.
	But China did the finishing touches on the gain of function and they released it.
	But before doing so, they bought up all the PPE. So a similar thing is happening now with radiological equipment.
	And it should be taken as a very strong indicator of what may be coming.
	Additional intel, crop losses in the Southern Hemisphere, and remember the Southern Hemisphere is coming up on their summer, so it is actually their springtime right now, so spring planting season in the Southern Hemisphere.
	Crop losses are expected to be 40-50% this season in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere, and it's because of not global warming, but global cooling, or at least cooling of the Southern Hemisphere.
	The cooling is being caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere due to volcanic eruptions, and perhaps you could argue to some extent additional stratospheric aerosol injections, i.e.
	global dimming experiments.
	But the bottom line is, whatever the cause, the temperatures are two to three degrees centigrade lower than they should be for the growing season.
	And just two degrees, two to three degrees is catastrophic for crop yields.
	I don't know if you know that, but we're talking average temperatures.
	And if crops don't have the right amount of heat at the right time of year, synchronized with the fertilizer and the rainfall and so on, then they just do not produce as they should.
	So this is why crop losses are headed towards 40% to 50%.
	Now, the researcher who is doing the best work on that...
	Right now, from what I know, is David Dubine, Adapt 2030.
	And I'm going to have David Dubine on for an extended interview, in fact, later today, about that very issue.
	And that extended interview should be released probably tomorrow or, at the latest, Friday, I would guess.
	But you'll want to tune into that because he's done a ton of research on what's happening, and he is absolutely convinced that global famine...
	It's on the way.
	It's going to get far worse.
	I mean, it's already begun.
	There are food shortages right now around the world for lots of reasons, but it's going to get so much worse in 2023, and it's going to last more than just that year.
	So we're talking about crop shortages for a couple of years, maybe more.
	Heading forward, it's probably going to be more like five years before we get any kind of recovery.
	And if there is a recovery on crops, it would only take place with a recovery in the energy supply and the fertilizer supply and affordable diesel fuel and things like that.
	And also the ending of all of the engineered droughts, which is just devastating the United States.
	So a lot has to happen.
	A lot has to go right for food production to be restored around the world.
	And I don't think that that's going to happen anytime soon.
	In fact, I think we're looking at, you know, real depopulation in the years ahead from vaccines as well as famine and war, you know, starvation, chaos, all of these things.
	And speaking of vaccines, that's the next news story here, and this is a huge deal.
	The New York Supreme Court has now ruled that the vaccine mandate for New York City employees was unconstitutional.
	And that all of those New York City employees, and this is something I predicted here in the podcast, by the way, several, maybe a year ago, all employees must be reinstated to their full employment positions and are entitled to back pay.
	Like, they're going to get paid for all the days that they've had off since they were terminated.
	So if a New York City employee was terminated a year ago and has been on vacation this entire year, They're going to get a year's back pay.
	And they're going to get their job back.
	And they don't have to take the vaccine.
	So you see, folks, there are just rewards for those who resist the vaccine bioweapons.
	If you just hold out and say no to the vaccines, eventually, like a lot of nurses have found out, you're going to get your job back.
	Because they're going to realize, well, they need you.
	And if you're an employee in New York City, you're going to get your job back there too and back pay.
	So there's a story about this at childrenshealthdefense.org.
	And the story says, the dominoes are falling.
	New York Supreme Court strikes down COVID vaccine mandate for New York City public workers, calling it, quote, arbitrary and capricious.
	The New York State Supreme Court on Monday struck down New York City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public workers, ruling in favor of 16 unvaccinated city workers who had sued.
	Following their termination.
	So even a liberal state Supreme Court is now saying that the vaccine mandate is insane.
	And what's really interesting about this lawsuit is that it was filed by sanitation workers.
	That's right.
	The people who take out the trash, right?
	We'll never underestimate the people who take out the trash because they just took out the vaccine trash, too, just now.
	Yeah.
	So a judge said that the law is, quote, null and void?
	No, I'm sorry.
	A judge struck it down.
	An attorney says, null and void, quote, we just defeated the vaccine mandate for every single city employee.
	So the garbage men achieved victory for all the employees of New York City.
	The cops, the firefighters, you know, the bureaucrats, the tech support personnel, everybody.
	Pretty amazing.
	Now, key to this being defeated was the fact that Mayor Eric Adams had exempted certain groups of people from the vaccine mandate.
	It exempted athletes, artists, and performers.
	He said, well, they didn't have to get vaccinated.
	Well, why?
	So the judge said, quote, granting exemptions for certain classes and selectively lifting some vaccination orders while maintaining others is simply the definition of disparate treatment.
	Furthermore, selective enforcement of these orders is also disparate treatment.
	So, you know, think about it.
	That's discrimination, right?
	That's dividing people by class just because you can.
	So Judge Porzio observed, quote, no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of the state or any subdivision thereof with the purpose of keeping, quote, government decision makers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant aspects alike.
	And he also said the Constitution states the following, which may sound familiar.
	No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of the law.
	Hmm.
	Imagine that.
	If only someone had written that a long time ago, you know, into the Bill of Rights, wouldn't that be amazing?
	Alright, moving on, but also health-related, although this story is a little racy.
	This is from the UK Daily Mail.
	A German doctor who killed his married lover by sprinkling cocaine on his member, we'll say, before engaging in oral sex, is ordered to pay 11,500 British pounds to cover the cost of medics' doomed bid to save her life.
	I mean, how do you unpack this story?
	I mean, first of all, shouldn't this go into the chapter of things to remember to tell Hunter Biden not to do?
	Number one.
	And then secondly, what about inflation?
	11,500 pounds just doesn't seem like enough to deal with this.
	You know, if your wife, or was this a wife or whoever it was, is dying from a cocaine overdose, How is that only 11,500 pounds worth of medical treatment when the British pound is falling in value so much?
	That's my question right there.
	I don't even have questions about the other stuff because that just seems like par for the course in our insane world right now.
	But of all the places to put cocaine...
	Don't put it there, apparently.
	I mean, how does enough cocaine even stay on there?
	I'm not even sure how that works.
	Is it a balancing act?
	Is this guy a circus performer?
	Or a juggler or something?
	That's some kind of incredible feat, shall we say, which brings us back to Hunter Biden's escapades, if you get my drift.
	Then again, I have no idea how much cocaine it takes to kill somebody because I suppose if it's fentanyl, it wouldn't take much.
	But cocaine, does anybody have any idea how much that takes?
	What is a fatal dose of cocaine?
	Is it like a tablespoon or what?
	Are you laughing?
	I have no idea.
	All right.
	But maybe that's a good thing.
	I do have a question, though.
	Every time that you see actors in Hollywood snorting cocaine in a movie, in a scene, or snorting what's supposed to be cocaine, don't you always wonder, what are they snorting?
	Is it baking soot?
	Is it maltodextrin?
	What is the Hollywood cocaine replacement snorting prop?
	Because those people are snorting that stuff.
	Whatever that is...
	That's crazy.
	I mean, yeah, I spray my sinuses with xylitol and a little bit of iodine.
	I talked about that the other day.
	That's not a recreational activity.
	Trust me.
	It sucks.
	It's like, oh, gosh.
	But it works.
	You notice my voice is fully recovered now from doing that.
	By the way, xylitol and iodine gets the job done.
	But if you were in a movie, you were an actor, and they said, oh, you have to snort this substance for this crack scene or whatever, cocaine scene, You gotta snort something.
	What do they put in there for you?
	And how do these actors handle that?
	Do they do so much cocaine in reality that when they have to snort a little maltodextrin, it's like nothing?
	Are you kidding me?
	That was just a little bump.
	It's like, you know, does that person say they're used to so much more that this was nothing?
	I mean, I don't know.
	But didn't Amber Heard Didn't people say she was taking some bumps during that trial with Johnny Depp?
	I remember hearing something about that.
	I was shocked.
	I was like, I don't know.
	Okay, I'm getting carried away.
	But these issues are really hilarious to me.
	Now, speaking of hilarious issues, here's a story at thepostmillennial.com.
	UK doctors are receiving training in, quote, gendered unicorn and, quote, gender...
	F bleep, identities.
	Okay, so there are new identities that doctors are being taught in the NHS, you know, National Health Service.
	They're learning about gender identities such as neutroi, polygender, which is just as ridiculous as it sounds, and gender bleep, which starts with an F, okay?
	Gender F bleep.
	What?
	What does that even mean?
	It's a two-hour training session that was leaked to the telegraph.
	Doctors were shown the gender unicorn, which has sliding scales depicting male, female, and man-woman as gender identities, and then it also says that sex is assigned at birth, and therefore it is, you know, fluid.
	And the story says the modern trans rights movement has redefined sexual orientation to, quote, gender orientation, largely for the benefit of heterosexual males who identify as women and believe themselves to be lesbians.
	Now, are you tracking this?
	Are you tracking all this?
	Okay.
	So, I mean, we used to make jokes about this as kids, but, I mean, this is joke material.
	So, they're saying that Biological men think that they are women who are lesbians, and that's why they're attracted to other women.
	No, maybe you're just a man attracted to a woman because that's normal, right?
	But no, not today.
	There's got to be layers of this.
	No, you might be a man who thinks you're a woman, and that woman is a lesbian, and that lesbian...
	Has a clone.
	And that clone is kinky.
	And that kinky clone used cocaine in the previous story.
	You know?
	I mean, where are they getting this stuff?
	Remember, I made a joke about this, I don't know, a couple months ago.
	I said that, what was it, if you're applying for...
	A job.
	And the job requires you to be transgender.
	Because that's, frankly, what a lot of jobs are looking for now.
	You've got to be transgender.
	And you show up, let's say you show up as a woman.
	Let's say you're a biological woman.
	You show up, you're a woman.
	And they say, well, you don't get the job.
	You're not transgender.
	You just say, oh, but I'm actually a woman self-identifying as a man.
	And that man is self-identifying as the woman you see before you hear.
	Therefore, I'm double trans, and I should get two salaries.
	And double qualified also, by the way.
	Double, just make everything double, and that's good.
	Woman identifying as a man who is identifying as a woman.
	And now, that's no longer a joke.
	That's actually, that has become the trans rights movement paradigm.
	As crazy as it sounds.
	Alright, let's move into a different subject matter here.
	Bring us back to the world of attempted sanity, if we can.
	Do you recall the letter that 30 progressive Democrats sent to the White House?
	It was like two days ago now.
	And the letter basically said that, hey, maybe we shouldn't escalate this war in Ukraine to the point of a nuclear war with Russia.
	Like, let's get into some diplomacy here.
	I mean, you get 30 Democrats calling for diplomacy, which is quite remarkable.
	And it was headed up by Representative Jaya Powell.
	I don't know what's the right way to say it.
	Pramila Jaya Powell.
	Is that right?
	Okay, from what?
	Washington State.
	All right.
	So they sent in this letter to the White House and said, you know, let's not go into thermonuclear World War III.
	The White House rejected it to such a strong degree that these 30 progressive Democrats, they apologized for the letter in less than 24 hours.
	They essentially retracted it and apologized and said, you know, we're sorry for demanding, you know, diplomacy and maybe a pathway to peace.
	So Glenn Greenwald tweeted out, quote, they couldn't even hold out for 24 hours.
	What a complete humiliation.
	Joe Crowley must be sitting in his lobbyist office cackling each time this happens.
	And he also tweeted out, holy bleep, the humiliation of Rep Jayapal and the House Progressive Caucus just got worse even when it appeared it couldn't.
	Her degrading reversal of their Ukraine letter after one day wasn't enough.
	Now they're formally retracting the letter.
	And blaming their own staff.
	That's exactly right.
	They blame their own staff.
	And they said that, oh, our staff wrote this.
	It wasn't us.
	It was unvetted.
	We didn't do it.
	You know, it's just it's it's amazing.
	As paraphrased by another Twitter person, Aaron Maté, this is a paraphrase quote.
	We apologize for calling for diplomacy to end a catastrophic proxy war against a nuclear armed power.
	Bring on Armageddon.
	Yes, exactly.
	They retracted their calls for peace.
	So, folks, not only is anybody who mentions peace considered like a Putin puppet at this point, like maybe we should not die in a nuclear holocaust.
	And they're like, you traitor, you must be on Putin's payroll.
	Not only is that in place, but now you have to retract any call for diplomacy or peace.
	You have to, in essence, repent for your sin of wanting a peaceful, non-holocaust-like solution.
	Non-nuclear annihilation solution.
	You must repent.
	Because it is a sin in Western culture now to not want the end of the world through a giant nuclear annihilation.
	Now how freaking crazy is that, huh?
	That's crazy.
	Remember when leftists used to be anti-war?
	You know, during the Gulf War.
	It wasn't even that long ago.
	Anti-war and George Bush is bad because he's leading us into war.
	Anti-war, now they're like, you must die in a nuclear, you know, global thermonuclear annihilation event or you're a traitor.
	Yeah, that's what the Democrats have come to.
	It's just incredible.
	Now, I've recorded a separate podcast on this issue of the radiological dirty bomb in Ukraine and the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles that apparently have been deployed in Romania at this point.
	They're likely to be pushed into Odessa to fight with the Russians after this dirty bomb goes off.
	And then we're going to be in World War III as engineered.
	And this could happen just in the next few days, by the way.
	So...
	Check out that separate podcast if you want to hear all the details on that.
	But the situation is not good.
	I mean, our Western nations are being led by suicidal, psychopathic lunatics who want world war.
	I guess because they want to cover their tracks or have their global reset or destroy America or maybe all of the above.
	But if they're not stopped, they're going to push us into war.
	And we're going to jump into the interview here with Mr.
	William Kirk.
	I think you'll find that fascinating.
	Our sponsor for the show today is the satellite phone store, sat123.com.
	Remember, they have the solar generators, as they're called, or the power stations with solar panels.
	These are the EcoFlow devices.
	They are the best that I've found in assessing that category of products.
	I own several of these.
	I've used them on trips, and they work.
	They're lithium iron phosphate chemistry in those batteries, by the way, and they have onboard inverters and charge controllers.
	You can charge them with a wall outlet or charge it with solar panels, a couple other ways to charge them at 12 volt, I think, as well.
	And so check those out.
	They're at sat123.com.
	Just scroll down and you'll see those EcoFlow devices.
	Of course, the Satellite Phone Store also has perhaps a few satellite phones remaining or they might be out by now.
	And they've got the Bivvy Sticks, which is the two-way satellite communications devices as well.
	So check all that out at Satellite Phone Store.
	And then for your seed needs, don't forget HHseeds.com, which stands for Heaven's Harvest.
	HHseeds.com, Heirloom Seeds.
	Use discount code RANGER. Gets you free shipping.
	All right, check out their seed packs.
	They've got some great seeds.
	And you're going to need them because a lot of the food will be missing soon.
	All right, now let's jump into the interview with Mr.
	William Kirk from Washington Gun Law.
	Let's find out what's happening there.
	Welcome, everyone, to this, I think it's going to be a really fun interview about Second Amendment issues, which is key to liberties in America.
	And I am joined by a first-time guest, but someone whose work I'm very impressed with.
	Of course, for those of you new, I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon.com, and I was deplatformed.
	So I built a platform so that we can speak about these issues, and that platform is Brighttown.com.
	And our guest tonight is Mr.
	William Kirk, and he runs WashingtonGunLaw.com, and he has a very popular YouTube channel of the same name, WashingtonGunLaw.com.
	Again, it's his website, and that's his channel name.
	And it's Washington State is what we're talking about here, but he's got expertise across the country.
	Mr.
	Kirk, welcome to the broadcast.
	It's an honor to have you on, sir.
	Mike, thank you very much for having me.
	Well, I've got to thank you for taking the time.
	I've heard several of your videos.
	You're so knowledgeable.
	Thank you for being willing to share your knowledge with the American people.
	Let's start with a big issue that's coming up, which is the ATF arm brace designation.
	I don't know what their new ruling is.
	This is something that was...
	Put in place by unelected officials.
	Nobody voted on this.
	Not Congress, not the public, nothing.
	But they're going to try to, it seems, criminalize millions of Americans who have legally purchased pistols with arm braces.
	And I guess they're going to, what, round people up, turn them in, melt them down?
	What's the situation?
	Well, I mean, the first part of your statement, your summary of what's occurring, is unfortunately quite accurate.
	That is exactly what is occurring.
	The ATF, many, many years ago, determined that something we all knew, which was pistol braces were lawful, and they made a determination as such.
	This current administration and current weaponization of the alphabet agencies are creating situations here now where We're kind of unleashing them.
	And so what the ATF is doing at this point is they're going to make a new determination that there are firearms that are equipped with pistol braces, maybe AR pistols as we all know them, but many of them may in fact be short barreled rifles.
	And of course, once we get into the short-barreled rifle realm, we are now into a realm where we are federally regulated, the NFA applies, there's registration requirements, and of course there's a large taxation that comes with that as well.
	And so the rule was originally published, I believe, in the summertime, and much like it was with the rule with frames and receivers, it was rather alarming.
	It was earth-shattering.
	There was a lot of comments, and I think the American folks, those in the 2A community, did a fantastic job of commenting to the ATF and flooding the system with comments.
	The rule has since been pulled back, pulled back completely, and it's going to be republished now in December.
	Which means if the rule is published in December, it has 120 days under federal regulations before it becomes active rules, not laws, active rules, and that will give us 120 days to figure out what all this really actually means to us.
	Well, hold on a second.
	What do you mean when you say the rule has been pulled back?
	So the federal regulations, as you know, when you publish a rule to the Code of Federal Regulations, you publish it to the CFRs, and then the rule, if it remains in place, if that's your proposed final rule, there's a 120-day waiting period before...
	There's a 120-day waiting period before the rule becomes effective.
	What ATF has chosen to do is actually pull back the rule.
	They did this on the frames and receivers as well, and they are going to publish an amended version of the rule, so it also pushes back the implementation dates of the rule as well.
	Okay, so what, they got too much pushback on the first version, they basically deleted it, and then they're working a new version, and they're going to publish that, and then that starts the clock counting again for 120 days.
	That's exactly right.
	Now, whether or not they've got too much pushback or they're trying to come up with more nefarious ways of screwing the lawful and responsible gun owner nationwide, I don't know.
	There obviously was a couple of huge developments from a legal perspective on the legal landscape.
	That I think the ATF would be wise to consider in their final rulemaking procedure.
	And then, of course, there's the whole question that is really bubbling to the surface, which is, you know, are they even capable of regulating this sort of stuff, or is this really supposed to be an act of Congress?
	Are there attorneys ready to sue the minute that this is republished or re-implemented?
	Yes, and I would point out that the two on the national level, actually, yeah, the three groups, I would say, that on the national level, and this is for all your listeners, that I think really, if you're looking for groups that want to jump down into the trenches and get their knuckles bloodied and really fight the fight, there's three, and that's the Firearms Policy Coalition, The Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation.
	Oh yeah, all great groups, yeah.
	Great groups.
	Listen, because I've excluded other groups, I'm not disparaging any other pro-2A group, NRA included in that.
	What I'm saying is that if people are looking for the groups that really, I mean, take the fight to this type of legislation or this type of rulemaking or anything, yeah, these three groups notoriously are leading the charge.
	Yeah, and Gun Owners of America is one that I've really helped support in the past.
	I think they do extraordinary work, but all the groups that you mentioned are fantastic.
	So I've actually, since I own multiple arm brace equipped AR-15 pistols, And some of them really don't function.
	I mean, you can't just swap out the arm brace with a standard stock.
	Some of these are like Sig Sauer MCX platforms and things like that.
	It doesn't work any other way.
	And so I took an interest in this, and I went through the ATF proposed rules, and I saw the little scorecard thing.
	Is that $49.99?
	$49.99?
	I don't recall the number, but it's got the point system.
	Yeah, the Form 4999, the four-point system, yes.
	Yeah, so the point, just so I can explain it to our listeners, the point system works like this.
	For all the characteristics that this firearm has, there is a score.
	And if you have more than, I think, three points in any one of these...
	Two categories, then they consider it to be an SBR, not a pistol with an arm brace.
	And they're very strict.
	I think one of them said, if a gun shoots, then it's considered an SBR. If it has a trigger, for example.
	I'm kidding, but I went through the point system and it's like, I'm going to have to strip everything off this firearm to have it qualified.
	What's your take on that?
	My take on it is that as much as I've seen the rule pulled back, I have not seen $49.99 pulled back or any discussion of amending $49.99.
	So I think the scoring criteria that's on the form is going to be the scoring criteria.
	And yes, if you accumulate four points or more, then yes, you do not have an AR pistol, you have an SBR. Now subject to NFA regulations and taxation and all of that.
	So that's the first thing.
	Now, the other thing is that if you're really just in general, if you want a 35,000-foot view of what $49.99 is all about, anything that's in the configuration of that firearm that suggests that the firearm is going to be shouldered is going to accumulate points.
	Right, that's a good way to describe it, yeah.
	Right?
	Including the way the optics are mounted.
	Exactly, including the type of optics, because as we know, there are some optics where if you had it strapped to one arm extended as the brace was originally designed to be used, especially for disabled veterans and other disabled people who wanted to continue to shoot in that platform, and that was the entire purpose of why that brace was designed.
	But the optics, if it's one that could be used either if it was arm extended or shouldered, is something that will not score as many points as versus the type of optic where you would have to have it shouldered in order to work.
	A foregrip.
	Any type of foregrip absolutely suggests the second arm going to the firearm, would suggest the brace going to the shoulder.
	Yes, right.
	But there are a lot of other things that are worrisome to me I'd like to ask you about.
	For example, I saw some language on that forum that said, no matter what the points are, we, the ATF, can just decide, well, it's an SBR anyway.
	Yeah, and this gets back to this whole new phenomenon that ATF is kicking around called amnesty registration.
	And this is a very alarming term.
	As we know, there is a budget proposal.
	ATF requested additional funds because they had to amend Form 1.
	Form 1, of course, is the form that we use when we assemble an NFA item.
	The reason they need to amend Form 1 is due to their new pistol brace amnesty registration period, which they are proposing.
	Now, just to geek out for a moment, when we take a look at the word amnesty, amnesty infers that we've done something illegal.
	Right.
	that forgives us, if you would.
	It's like, you know, as a Catholic, I got to go to communion, or confession, I should say, you know, and absolve myself, right?
	But these people, what is there to get amnesty from?
	Right, because the owners of these arm braces have not violated any laws in the Quarren.
	Absolutely none whatsoever.
	Nobody violated any law when they purchased an AR pistol.
	And so if you take a look at their budget request, though, they're saying that they need to amend Form 1 because they've got to make sure that they get photographs of the firearms to ensure that it, A, utilizes a stabilizing brace, and, two, qualifies for amnesty registration.
	I don't know, and we don't know what the term qualifies for amnesty registration means.
	Does that mean you get to register it and not pay the $200 tax stamp?
	Is it a tax amnesty registration?
	Which would be, you know, okay, that's one thing.
	Or is it, hey, listen, if you submit these photos, which of course will involve, you know, the specifics necessary for ATF to make its own determination of the firearm using Form 4999, Then, if you're not granted amnesty, what happens?
	Now you've given them the photograph of the firearm that they want to confiscate.
	Well, exactly.
	I mean, isn't this almost a Fifth Amendment issue?
	You know, it's self-incrimination trying to comply.
	You send them a photo and, you know, your home address and the serial number and everything else, and then ATF shows up at your door like you're under arrest.
	Why?
	Well, because we determined that your photo showed an unregistered SBR. Well, just trying to comply, sirs.
	Which we compelled you to do through the threat of forfeiture to begin with of your property.
	Exactly.
	It's a horrible, horrible trap that's being set.
	It's one of the more grotesque examples of government overreach that you'll find.
	And it really goes to show how dangerous this current political agenda and the weaponization of these alphabet agencies is.
	It could be.
	The ATF has always been used as a little bit of a stick or a sword, but we're beginning to see it in a lot of the other alphabet agencies as well, and it's really alarming.
	Now, your clients, because you're a practicing attorney in Washington State, correct?
	Correct.
	So clients come to you from all over the country to help deal with ATF issues, or what kind of clients do you have?
	Primarily, I'm a criminal defense attorney specializing in this area of law, so I do represent a lot of folks in the state of Washington on various offenses and most often self-defense claims, things such as that, other firearms-related issues, other self-defense-related issues.
	On a national level, I've gained a pretty good knowledge and rapport with the ATF. I kind of stumbled onto some issues a year ago about forced reset triggers and solvent traps and kind of got a little lucky in some predictions where I had done some videos back in the day saying, hey, I just don't think this is a good idea, and I think ATF's going to come back and haunt people on this.
	And got a lot of hate comments back then in the day for doing it, but low and bold...
	We fast forward to where we ended up late this summer and this fall with Operation Reticent Recall and the scavenger hunt that ATF's been on looking for forced reset triggers, wide open triggers, solvent traps and all of that.
	And so I have been able to assist a lot of people on a national level and just kind of communicating on their behalf to the local ATF divisions.
	Okay.
	Well, that's actually great to hear.
	It sounds like if the ATF publishes these new rules, you're going to have like a year-long wait.
	So many people calling you needing representation because there's going to be 10 million instant criminals in America if the ATF does this.
	Well, yeah.
	Unfortunately, I don't think that that's an overstatement here.
	That's exactly what could occur.
	But I think that, you know, we talked earlier, if you don't mind kind of segueing into another case here, which is this West Virginia case that you and I were talking about before we started the cast here, which is a lot of people are all excited about the Bruin case, and that's New York Pistol and Rifle Association v.
	Bruin that came out over the summer, and we can talk about that in a moment.
	But The case that a lot of people really need to pay attention to is West Virginia versus EPA. Because the West Virginia EPA case was basically the Supreme Court saying, listen, if we have an executive agency which is making policy decisions which significantly affects American commerce,
	that is, that there is a large transfer of wealth from one industry to another industry, or from one sector of the economy to a different sector of the economy, That's what's considered a major question, and under the major question doctrine, we cannot have executive agencies making those decisions.
	That's a violation of separation of powers.
	That needs to be through an act of Congress.
	Let me just interject here.
	This was over the EPA's decision to essentially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant.
	That's right.
	And the Supreme Court slapped that down, setting this precedent you're talking about in this case West Virginia versus EPA. And the ramifications of this, if properly challenged, By other attorneys through other cases, could affect overreach in ATF, FDA, CDC, I mean, DEA, even all kinds of agencies.
	Any of the alphabet agencies.
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	And because what the court said there is, what the Biden administration essentially did is, as we all know, they declared war on fossil fuels, okay?
	And they wanted to have this green energy.
	And of course, they couldn't enact this through an act of Congress because there's just not the political clout in this particular administration to get anything done in Washington, which is a good thing in some ways, although they've still managed to find enough ways to damage.
	But but what they did here is they basically turned the EPA loose on the coal industry and the EPA wrote all these new regulations and reinterpreted a lot of preexisting regulations so that the coal industry essentially was going to be put out of business.
	And of course, the green energy industry would flourish because of the new interpretations of rules and new rules that were put in place.
	Well, Congress.
	The Supreme Court correctly pointed out that you're talking about transferring billions and billions of dollars of commerce from one industry to another industry without an act of Congress.
	That's not how it works in this country.
	Fast forward and take the same analogy now to what ATF is doing here.
	We have what?
	We don't know, but somewhere between 25 and 50 million AR pistols that could all be subject to a $200 tax.
	And registration, which is actually a big issue.
	So you're talking about billions and billions of new dollars in taxation, which is being created without an act of Congress.
	Right.
	And I think that's where you will see one of the biggest challenges to this rule the minute it drops.
	Am I certain that Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation probably already have their pleadings teed up?
	Yeah, they probably do.
	And I think that while the Bruin case is incredibly helpful for all gun legislation moving forward, this EPA case is a much bigger deal than I think a lot of legal scholars are giving it credit for.
	I completely agree with you, because the EPA case kind of cuts off the head of the Hydra.
	Right.
	It's, you know, hey, you have to stay in a smaller box.
	That's right.
	You've got to stay in your lane.
	You've got to stay in your lane.
	Congress gets to delineate where your lane is, and then once you're in it, that's where you've got to stay.
	And if Congress wants to give you more authority, well, then Congress has to act and give you more authority.
	Right.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But what about then, you mentioned the New York Pistol and Rifle Association versus Bruin decision.
	Couldn't that decision also set a precedent that could be used to overturn the ATF's new arm brace rules?
	I think it absolutely could.
	I think that what a lot of people need to understand about the Bruin opinion is it is a landmark opinion.
	Not because it shot down the May-Carry laws.
	That was a very, very wise portion of the opinion.
	It was a righteous and just portion of the opinion.
	But what Justice Thomas authored in the majority opinion was the rule of law moving forward that must be used any other time we're going to analyze the constitutionality of gun control legislation.
	And it has done away with the two-part balancing test that all of these Federal Circuit Court of Appeals would use.
	Being politically motivated to justify AR bans, magazine bans, ammunition bans, some of these crazy registration requirements, these may-issue laws, and all of this based upon this balancing test.
	Well, we're saving lives, so therefore the infringement to the individual is insignificant compared to what we're doing.
	And that was the balancing test.
	What the court said is, nope, nope, nope.
	Moving forward, we don't get into the second part of the test.
	We're going to ask ourselves one thing.
	Does the activity that's regulated here, the type of activity which is encompassed by the Second Amendment?
	And then if we have a regulation, is there a historical analog that supports that?
	And that if you really want to geek out on the opinion and read like what Justice Comey Barrett wrote, the historical analog is one that exists at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified.
	Wow.
	Which is 1791.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay.
	So, now, I'm sure there will be great debate amongst legal scholars as to whether or not that is truly the thing, but if we're going to actually talk about a historical analog in any way, shape, or form, we've got to remember that most of these crazy gun control legislation that we see around the country has really only come into existence in the 1990s and forward.
	I think the first magazine ban was 1989 in California.
	Wow.
	So, on a historical perspective, that's not a broad historical perspective of this type of similar restrictions.
	When we get back into more longer restrictions that we've seen throughout the course of time, for example, prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and things like that, I think there is a much more of a lengthier historical analog for that.
	Yeah, and by the way, looking back in time, I'm really surprised that in 1994 they passed the 10-year ban on AR-15s, just in retrospect.
	Because think about how important having an AR rifle is today, given the increase in violence and the anti-police, you know, defunding the police and rural living and everything.
	I can't imagine living on a ranch without an AR-15.
	But they banned new AR-15s for 10 years!
	They did.
	They did.
	And yet, when you take a look at the data on the reduction in gun violence during that time, there is no data to support it.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	And we all just bought pre-banned ARs at the time and just paid more money.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now, on the issue of AR bans, as we know, there are some states that have done it, California, Maryland, and candidly, my state tried it last year, didn't get off the ground too far, but I think that they're going to make a big run at it here in Washington State this coming legislative session, which starts in January.
	But there's a case that got kicked down from the United States Supreme Court, a case called Bianchi v.
	and it's a case out of Maryland.
	And that is a case that is a challenge to Maryland's assault rifle ban.
	And that case was awaiting review by the United States Supreme Court when the Bruin case got handed down.
	And there were four cases, really important, four Second Amendment cases that were waiting there, kind of, it's like being at the front of the line, waiting to get let into the club, you know?
	And when the Bruin opinion came down, what the Supreme Court did with all four of those cases is they GVR'd it.
	So they granted, vacated the ruling and remanded it down.
	So they sent it back down to the lower courts where they'd come from, but with an order from the United States Supreme Court saying, hey, he didn't correctly apply the law, so let us give you this.
	Here's the new roadmap you're going to use.
	It's a much more simple roadmap than what you used before, and we want you to redo this.
	And if those courts correctly apply the rule of law, then an AR ban, a magazine ban, and things like that simply cannot survive.
	Yeah, it's just a thing of beauty, actually.
	Justice Thomas is God's gift to America right now, I'm telling you.
	He's doing some incredible things.
	And listen, to give credit where credit is due, Justice Scalia really made this rule what we thought abundantly clear 14, 15 years ago in Heller vs.
	District of Columbia.
	Huh.
	And an excellent author of opinions.
	And he had made it very clear that it was a strict scrutiny analysis.
	And for whatever reason, the appellate courts just didn't seem to think he was serious about it.
	So interestingly, during that course of time between Heller and Bruin, there were many, many other cases that had asked to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court would routinely just not accept review, leaving the rulings of the lower courts in place.
	And it was Thomas that would consistently write these scathing opinions and dissenting opinions when they denied review about, you know, why are we treating this as a second-class right?
	They still don't have the rule of law correctly.
	Why are we allowing them to use the wrong analysis?
	We need to get a case up here so we can correct this once and for all.
	And Thomas was very vocal about it.
	So it was very poetic that he got to author the majority opinion.
	Yeah, yeah, that's extraordinary.
	Now, there's something I'm confused about that I think you can probably clarify and answer.
	I believe after the New York Pistol and Rifle Association versus Bruin decision, I think New York State, but correct me if I'm wrong, I think their lawmakers went back and said, okay, we're going to have to let people carry guns, but we're going to restrict it.
	And basically they wrote a law, I'm exaggerating slightly, that said, okay, you can carry a gun anywhere except everywhere.
	Yeah, so Governor Hochul and her goons in Albany basically completely crapped themselves.
	And it's interesting you bring this up because I was actually reading subsession law out of New York just a few nights ago looking at this.
	And so what they did is they had one of these special needs.
	You've got to demonstrate, one, you're lawfully allowed to carry a firearm and then a special need in order to get a permit to carry.
	And, of course, nobody ever met the special needs.
	And that's what struck down.
	But what they've supplanted that with is good moral character.
	You must establish that you're of good moral character.
	Now think about this first.
	You must establish that you're of good moral character.
	So do we start from the presumption that you're not?
	Well, right.
	And more importantly, all of these bureaucrats in New York would say that anybody who wants to own a gun is a bad moral character.
	Yeah.
	The same ones who also supported their governor for a number of years, too.
	Right.
	So, I mean, it's a catch-22.
	You can't qualify.
	Well, the problem is that it's introducing subjectivity into what should be an objective criteria.
	Yes.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	And this is one...
	Even though I'm critical of Washington State on a lot of my videos and the Washington State Legislature, I will say that I think that if you're going to have a concealed carry license in your state, Washington State does it pretty good because Washington State is a shall-issue state, and our rules work quite simply.
	When you apply, it is law enforcement's duty to disprove that you are eligible to possess a firearm.
	And if they cannot find any reason for which you are ineligible to possess a firearm, they shall issue you the permit and it shall be issued within 30 days of its application.
	If you're an out-of-state guy, if you applied for Washington State, you could apply at any state, and they have up to 90 days to issue.
	But again, if they run a background check on you and you check out, you're lawfully allowed to possess a firearm, that's all that's required of you.
	Right, right.
	But what's going to happen in New York?
	What's going to happen in New York is that this is going to get challenged again.
	It's going to run all the way up.
	And I think what's happening with a lot of these states is they're sore losers.
	They're literally writing laws that they know to be in violation of Supreme Court precedent.
	They're literally writing laws that they know to be in violation of the Second Amendment.
	And they're just saying, well, yeah, they'll get knocked down someday.
	But in the meantime, we can disarm our citizens this way.
	I see.
	Yeah.
	Wow.
	And it's a sad state of affairs to say that about any elected official that you would just willingly write laws that you know do not stand constitutional muster.
	The folks in Oregon right now have a ballot measure called ballot measure 114.
	And if your listeners haven't checked it out, please check it out.
	It is the worst piece of gun legislation you've ever read in your entire life.
	And it's being sold to the folks in Oregon like it's just a magazine ban and a little bit of mandatory training before you can get a gun.
	But what it really amounts to is that you have to apply for a license that is a privilege that's granted to you by the state before you can then go exercise a constitutional right.
	Right.
	And that's going to be, if it passes, that's going to be challenged immediately as well.
	As it should, because this would be no different than if we wanted to give everyone a political litmus test before we allowed them to vote.
	Right.
	Or a religious litmus test before we allowed them to pick what church they go to on Sunday.
	And that's not how it works.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I want to give out your website one more time.
	WashingtonGunLaw.com is the site for Mr.
	William Kirk here.
	And it's okay if I call you Bill?
	Yes.
	Absolutely.
	All right.
	And I've got a few more questions for you if you have a couple more minutes.
	Yeah, let's do it.
	Okay.
	So one of the things that I think a lot of gun owners...
	They really want to obey the laws because they want to keep everything legal so that there's no question.
	They're not gun runners or anything like that.
	They're just law-abiding citizens that want to be safe in their person, in their homes, in their families, and so on.
	So they want to abide by the laws.
	Well, let's go back to this arm brace decision or ruling, whatever the rules are that the ATF is about to publish.
	I recall reading that the ATF After the 120-day period, if this goes into effect, they gave people, I think, four ways to remedy a firearm that would not be allowed to have an arm brace.
	You probably remember the four ways better than I do.
	I think it was five, actually, and I can actually pull it up here real quick.
	Yeah, please do, but I know one of them was to turn over the firearm to the ATF, so nobody's going to do that.
	That's one of your options, yes.
	The second one was to destroy the firearm and provide proof to the ATF. Uh-huh.
	The third one was, I think, to put on a 16-inch barrel.
	So just make it a regular longer barrel with an arm brace.
	And I think the other way was to remove the arm brace.
	And my question for you, and you're probably the perfect person to ask this, if this rule goes down and millions of Americans don't want to suddenly become criminals, could they just remove their arm braces and just separate them?
	Yeah.
	It's a great question.
	And the jury's still out on that a little bit.
	There have been some people out there in the YouTuberverse that say that you have to also destroy your arm brace.
	I don't read the rule that way.
	The option as it's currently written in the ATS rule, again, this is subject to change upon the publishing of the new rule, is permanently remove or alter the stabilizing brace such that it cannot be reattached.
	There you go.
	Permanently remove.
	That was the thing that tripped me up.
	How do you permanently remove?
	Well, there's a couple different ways.
	Obviously, you could remove the stabilizing brace and destroy it to such a way that it would not be able to be reattached.
	I believe you can also change out the buffer tube, right?
	Make it so that nothing could be attached to it?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That's a couple of different ways of doing it.
	The way I see it and the way I've interpreted it is this.
	The entire rule is called firearms with attached stabilizing braces.
	That's what the score sheet is called.
	A firearm with an attached stabilizing brace.
	So if it's not attached...
	If we don't have a stabilizing brace attached to it, why are we scoring the firearm at that point?
	Yes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But also, you mentioned someone could change the buffer tube.
	But that's not necessarily permanent.
	I could put on a different buffer tube and keep all the old parts.
	You could.
	Here's the other thing, and I'm sure you've got some listeners out there that have done their own Form 1 stuff.
	When you're going to build an NFA item, you can buy all the components for an NFA item, you register it, and then once you get ATF's blessings, you can do final assembly.
	Well, what ATF is asking us to do through amnesty registration is send to them firearms that they believe to be NFA items, send them photographs of them in their absolute completed configuration before they approve our Form 1.
	Wait a second.
	They're telling you to violate the law before they allow you to not violate the law.
	And listen, I think that...
	If it weren't the ATF, we'd probably be like, oh, there's got to be a better explanation.
	But this is unfortunately the reputation that they've earned.
	In defense of ATF, and this is all I will say in defense, the agents that I deal with in the field are really awesome people, and a lot of them roll their eyes at what the brass is telling them to do.
	Sure.
	I also think that those agents have no future in the ATF because they're not rotten to the core and therefore they will not make it into the upper leadership.
	Well stated, yeah.
	Yeah, but the ones I get to deal with, the ones that show up in my office to pick up triggers and solvent traps, absolutely fantastic people, really.
	But for your listeners, the five options on this pistol brace thing is, number one was to either permanently remove or alter the stabilizing brace such that it cannot be reattached.
	Two is remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel, thus taking it out of that.
	Which, of course, if you're going to do that, you probably should just go ahead and throw a regular stock on the back end of it, too.
	Yeah, exactly, right.
	I mean, you know, it's a rifle now, so just make it a rifle.
	Number three, destroy the firearm.
	And an ATF does promise that they're going to publish videos on their website on how to do that.
	I'm sure.
	You know, the service operation that they are.
	Number four is, of course, turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
	And then the fifth one, and this is the one that we got to, again, we're going to have to parse the language out and see what the rule says finally, but it's complete and submit an application to make and register a firearm ATF Form 1.
	As part of the submission, the $200 tax payment is required with application, and then it goes through all the other things that you have to do to properly file a Form 1.
	So again, I'm beginning to wonder, what's the amnesty here?
	Right.
	Right, and these questions will not be answered, even potentially by the time this rule goes into effect.
	That's the thing, is you don't know how these rules are going to be interpreted or implemented.
	No, and I have been able to talk to some of the higher-up chief counsel for ATF. Private conversations off the record.
	And I asked him, I was like, you know, listen, and you mentioned this yourself just a moment ago.
	Lawful gun owners.
	Yeah.
	Lawful gun owners are the most law-abiding community in the entire United States.
	The Department of Justice Statistics bears this out.
	You want to know the group of individuals has the lowest crime per capita.
	It's concealed carry holders in the United States.
	They have a lower crime per capita than college-educated Asians.
	And you can imagine that college-educated Asians have an incredibly low crime rate in that demographic group.
	Okay?
	So they just want to know where are the lines so they can scribble inside of them.
	And so when I talk to ATF counsel and I said, can you please just give me some information so that I can disseminate it to my viewers and just say, guys, this is what this really means.
	And then, you know, you all get to act in the level of compliance that you choose to act in.
	That's fine.
	But my job's really always been like, let me just show you where the lines are and then you decide what you do with that.
	And I can't even do that when it comes to ATF. So, where does this end up?
	I mean, I can see innocent people being arrested and convicted even though they tried to comply.
	Yeah, I don't know if we'll get to that level.
	I think that what we're all going to have to do is right after the first of the year, after this rule has dropped and we get through the holiday season, be very cognizant of what types of actions are being filed in various circuit courts around the country, especially those that are requesting injunctive relief.
	And take a look at how fast these accelerate from the district courts into the federal circuit appellate courts.
	You may see some accelerated things.
	Now, anything coming out of the Ninth Circuit where I sit will probably not be promising, but there are other circuits in which you may see more promising action out of.
	Ultimately, if this thing drops, it's going to have to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
	Yeah, clearly.
	And by the way, I noticed you just used the term drops, and I hear a lot of people using that term when it comes to the publishing of these rules, but I don't want people to be confused.
	It means that it gets active, not nullified.
	Right.
	To say it's dropped, it means it's published.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	So what happens?
	And I think the same could happen to the folks in Oregon here.
	I think ballot measure 114 can pass.
	I think these rules are going to be published.
	I think these rules are going to go into effect.
	I think they're going to affect Americans.
	For a period of time, until and at such time that a court either puts injunctive relief on or strikes the laws down.
	Can people be harmed in the meantime?
	Yeah.
	What's most offensive about it is that I think that the people who draft this legislation, either they're absolutely completely morons and they never read case law, or they are knowingly writing laws that they know are violative of the Second Amendment and the law of the land.
	They know it.
	You would not write these laws to be this way if that were the case.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, okay, another question relative to all this.
	The binary trigger company, I forgot the name.
	You would know the name of who I'm talking about.
	Franklin Arbery did the binary trigger.
	There we go.
	Now, didn't the ATF go to them or somebody like them and demand a customer list?
	Maybe it's not the binary trigger.
	It's like some automatic reset.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, okay, so the ATF years ago, and I'll just call them all these post-market triggers that obviously accelerate the rate of fire, and so we had Rare Breed had their forced reset trigger.
	Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking, Rare Breed.
	Yeah, Rare Breed with the forced reset, Big Daddy with the wide open trigger, you had the Hellfire trigger system, and then you had the binary trigger.
	ATF, despite previous determinations that forced reset and wide open triggers did not constitute a component of a machine gun, has since reversed course on that, and they are in a position now where they are actually running around the country trying to pick up these triggers.
	Now, But to do that, they acquired customer lists, correct?
	Okay, so, yeah.
	This is my experience talking to probably 250 people around the country in various levels of trouble as it came to this, is that if you bought the trigger from Big Daddy, you probably have not...
	I've never talked to anyone in the country who bought from Big Daddy that received a letter from ATF yet, okay?
	Okay.
	I talked to very few people who bought from Rare Breed that had received letters.
	A small number, but not many.
	But if you bought these things off a gun broker, you have already gotten your letter.
	Oh, wow.
	And so what ATF did is, there was a few people that had accounts, and they were selling a lot of these things.
	And apparently, if you knew what you're doing, you could buy these things low and sell them high and make money.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	And the ATF obviously came down on Gunbroker.
	I don't know how much Gunbroker has cooperated with it.
	We've never been able to verify whether they've cooperated or not.
	I do know, and I've done a couple videos about a kid who was going to a major state university in another state other than Washington that was selling a ton of these things, and ATF showed up and raided his place.
	Of course, they confiscated all of his sales records and everything, so every one of his purchasers ended up with letters.
	I talked to a hundred of them.
	The reason I ask this and why this is relevant to the Armbrace decision or rules is, wouldn't the ATF perhaps go to major online retailers like Brownells or whoever and say, give us the list of everybody who bought an Armbrace or SB Tactical, for example?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and I think if they went and asked Brownells or SB Tactical, I think they would probably tell them to pound sand.
	But if they got a search warrant or subpoena deuces, take them signed for it, well, then all bets are off.
	Now there's a court order.
	Yeah, right.
	Exactly.
	And then you probably would get a letter.
	Everybody who bought it would get a letter or a visit.
	Now, I wanted to ask you about the visit, too, and I'm mindful of your time, so we're going to wrap this up shortly.
	But there have been videos over the last few months, I know you've seen them, where ATF agents were showing up at people's homes, I believe.
	Just people who bought a pistol and a rifle on the same day.
	Yeah, yeah, I did a video on that.
	I know exactly what you're talking about.
	Yeah, and that, I mean, how crazy is that?
	Because I always buy a rifle and a pistol on the same day.
	I mean, why not?
	You're there, just get it done.
	But that's not unusual.
	Why are they visiting people's homes who just bought a pistol and a rifle?
	Okay, so what a lot of people don't know is there is actually a document that ATF requires all FFLs in the country to fill out, which is a multiple purchase document.
	And so whether you're buying two handguns, two shotguns, two rifles, two whatever, if you buy two or more on the same sale, there is a document that must be sent to ATF. Right.
	Okay.
	Now, it's been going on for years and years and years and Nobody did anything about it.
	What caught the attention of everyone is when these ATF agents and law enforcement agents showed up at this house, and it was really a guy who had absolutely no criminal history.
	There was nothing shady about this guy at all.
	He had bought a couple of firearms at one purchase, which, yes, have I done that before?
	Yes, I have.
	Have you done it before?
	It sounds like you have.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And listen, the day after Christmas, I might be on Palmetto State Armory buying many things.
	I mean, how can you resist?
	I mean, I'm there to pick up a transfer, and then I see something else that's awesome, right?
	Well, you get online on one of those really good sales days and they're just blowing things out and it's just hard to resist.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So, yeah, in this situation, though, for whatever reason, he got a visit.
	Now, understand that if ATF ever comes to anyone's home to visit and they just want to see if you're willing to talk to them, you absolutely have the right to say no.
	Right.
	Yeah, because they didn't even show up with a warrant.
	They just showed up with, I don't know, a printout of some gun serial killers or something.
	And in general, the rule is when law enforcement of any nature shows up at your home to talk to you, it's usually not for a good thing.
	So...
	At that point, I would not engage in any conversation.
	I'd confer with an attorney right away.
	In some instances, I've seen situations where I was like, no, no, we can talk to ATF about that.
	And in other situations, it's like, nope, we're not going to talk to them at all.
	And it really depends on what the individual situation is.
	Sure, that makes sense.
	It just seems more brazen on the part of the ATF to do that kind of thing.
	It's almost like it's an intimidation tactic.
	It's not that they expected to find a felon with a bunch of guns.
	It's just they want to...
	Yeah, I think that there is this generalized, we want to make things as uncomfortable and uneasy for gun owners as humanly possible, and just try to break their will to some degree.
	Exactly.
	People are just like, you know what, I just don't even want to deal with it anymore.
	I mean, I live in Texas, and if ATF agents showed up at my door, I would say, look, you guys want to catch some guns?
	Head south, man.
	There's a whole bunch of guns coming across the border.
	You can catch one like every 10 minutes.
	Well, yeah.
	Listen, if we took every agent we have running around in the country right now looking for solvent traps and forced reset triggers and just put them all on the south side of Chicago for a couple of weeks...
	Exactly.
	How many unlawful firearms can we pull off the streets there?
	And by the way, there are real numbers to back up what those firearms do on a weekly basis.
	All you got to do is pull up the Chicago Tribune on a Monday morning and see how many they slaughtered over the weekend because it's disgusting.
	Yeah, it is.
	Absolutely.
	All right.
	You've been amazing, so knowledgeable in answering these questions that I'm sure the audience shares.
	Is there anything that you want to add before we wrap this up today?
	Sure.
	Well, like I say, for your listeners out there, there's a lot of people out there that are going to tell you a lot of different things about what's going on.
	And a lot of people, especially in the YouTube-verse, are going to tell you how to think about things.
	And what we try to do at Washington Gun Laws, we try to give you the most objective information that you can get.
	You get to decide what that means to you.
	We'll tell you what compliance means and what a lack of compliance can cost you, but you get to decide what your level of compliance is.
	We're really just trying to give lawful and responsible gun owners the most objective information they can so that they can make the wise decisions that they need to about how they want to live their lives.
	Absolutely.
	You represent people that have been involved in self-defense shootings as well?
	Yes, I do.
	Okay.
	Okay, great.
	And you represent people outside of Washington State?
	I represent people outside of the state of Washington, usually on ATF issues.
	If you're involved in a self-defense situation in a state other than Washington, I can certainly assist in making sure that you get the best counsel humanly possible in your jurisdiction.
	There you go.
	Okay, great.
	All right.
	Well, thank you, Bill, or Mr.
	Kirk.
	I mean, it's just been an honor to have you on...
	I've enjoyed it.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Your knowledge based on this is really remarkable and you're helping a lot of people sort this out.
	And I hope to maybe connect with you again as we learn more about this ATF ruling and whether they publish it or it gets challenged or so on.
	Maybe the first of the year or if not sooner.
	Absolutely.
	Anytime.
	Love to be back.
	Thank you for having me.
	Well, thank you very much.
	Have a great evening.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Take care.
	Okay, that was cool.
	I love interviewing really smart people.
	Obviously, Mr.
	William Kirk is extremely intelligent, very well informed, and he's a structured thinker, which of course is necessary to be an effective criminal defense attorney.
	You've got to be a structured thinker.
	And He knows his stuff.
	Very cool guy.
	I can't wait to have him back on and see what happens with the ATF because I'm standing by with a box of matches and my arm brace.
	Well, actually, a few arm braces.
	I'm wondering when I should melt them and then send the photos to the ATF. So I'm going to wait.
	If Mr.
	Kirk tells me it's melting time, then I'm just going to whip out the matches and Maybe pour some kerosene on.
	I don't know.
	Could be a fire hazard.
	Don't worry.
	I have plenty of fire extinguishers, as you know.
	But I can't wait to melt down my arm brace and then send a photo of a steaming pile of plastic goo to the ATF to tell them, yep, those were my arm braces.
	I promise you that.
	Kind of makes you wonder, how are they going to verify that, doesn't it?
	Could people just melt down any piece of black plastic?
	That was the arm brace.
	There you go.
	I destroyed it.
	Melted it down.
	It's going to be interesting to see how that goes.
	Or maybe you 3D print your own arm brace and then melt that.
	Just because, you know, they're 3D printing like pistol receivers and people are selling them back to the cities during the gun buyback programs.
	And they're making like 50 bucks for everyone they print.
	Some kid made the thousands of dollars doing that.
	So I guess you could print a bunch of arm braces and then melt them down.
	I mean, this is the American economy under Biden.
	You make stuff in order to burn it down, basically, to comply, obviously.
	Speaking of things being burned down, there was a debate between Fetterman and Dr.
	Oz.
	Fetterman's campaign just melted down like wretched smoking plastic or something.
	Fetterman is utterly incapable of functioning as a cognitively aware human being.
	I do feel sorry for him.
	He cannot speak in any coherent way.
	He cannot listen.
	He cannot process information.
	He can't process words, which you'd think might be necessary to be a senator, but not for a Democrat.
	I mean, heck, they've got, quote, a president who is cognitively unaware.
	So why not have a whole Senate of people who just aren't there anymore?
	Well, Dr.
	Oz, like, sliced and diced this guy like a surgeon.
	Like a surgeon.
	Remember the old Madonna song?
	Yeah, that's what it was.
	Oz slice and dice them, and Fetterman is just plummeting in the polls following that event.
	And I feel sorry for him because he suffered from a stroke earlier this year, and he really should have pulled out of the Senate race and just focused on living out the rest of his life in a quality way at home with family and just try to deal with recovering from his stroke but not pretending to be capable of being a U.S. and he really should have pulled out of the Senate race
	So right now the betting odds for Oz are about 64% that he's going to win the race in Pennsylvania and only 38% for Fetterman.
	And that changed dramatically after Fetterman's horrible debate performance.
	Thing is, you know, Dr.
	Oz has how many years of TV experience, right?
	And you remember I was on his show a few years back.
	And, you know, he's a professional.
	On camera, off camera, Oz, he's smooth as silk in front of a camera.
	He knows exactly what he's doing.
	I mean, if you didn't know, if you didn't see behind the scenes, you might not appreciate the whole thing, but the guy commands the TV space, you know, the podium, the being on camera, the public speaking space.
	He's great at that.
	No matter what you think about Oz's policies on everything, because he's kind of a moderate, you could say a moderate Republican, he might not agree with everything that he's got in his bag of policies or whatever, but he knows this space and he just mopped the floor with Fetterman.
	No question about it.
	Now, by the way, don't just take my word for it.
	Watch this Fetterman.
	You have 26 seconds that will blow your mind, especially if you've never heard him speak.
	Well, you're going to hear 26 seconds, and after this, you will still think you've never heard him speak because he can't speak.
	Check this out.
	Now, we all have to make sure that everyone that works is able to, that's the most American bargain, that if you work full-time, you should be able to live in dignity, is well true.
	And I believe they haven't had any businesses being, you can't have businesses being subsidized by not paying individuals that just simply can't have aid to pay their own way.
	What did he say?
	At this point, I'm thinking, sit down, Wilson!
	Made more sense, right?
	Because at least the sit down, Wilson guy had a mannequin that he was talking to in a semi-reasonable way.
	Like, have something to drink, Wilson!
	How come you didn't put your pants on, Wilson?
	But Fetterman is worse than the crazy wino hobo subway rider in New York City.
	Fetterman, he's talking, but there's nothing happening there that makes any sense.
	I mean, seriously, winos make more sense than this guy.
	Nobody knows what Fetterman is saying.
	Even Dr.
	Oz must be just, I mean, how does he not just crack up laughing almost, which would seem cruel.
	Because you're not supposed to laugh at, you know, patients who have a medical condition, right?
	But you're also not supposed to put them in the Senate, it turns out.
	You know, especially if it's a cognitive condition.
	So I don't know how Oz just kept his composure and just stood there like blank face, you know?
	And in his mind, I know Oz must be thinking, oh my God!
	This is the most awesome moment ever!
	Oz is just like...
	Oh my God, we're going to win for sure after this.
	And you can bet that in Arizona, Katie Hobbs probably saw this as like, oh, there's no way I'm going to debate Carrie Lake.
	No, not after that.
	Because Katie Hobbs, it's not that she doesn't make sense, it's that no one can stand to hear her talk because she reminds you of just like a nagging librarian from elementary school or something.
	Did you bring the book back?
	You owe a fine...
	Oh my God!
	How can you govern with that kind of whiny, naggy voice?
	Don't you just love Carrie Lake?
	No, seriously.
	She's impressive.
	Just mind-blowingly impressive.
	I really want to see her go places in politics, you know, representing.
	Of course, she's got to do a good job with Arizona first, which is going to be challenging.
	But, man, she's impressive.
	She is, in my book, she's like right up there with DeSantis.
	And I know I mentioned this the other day.
	I got a little flack, but maybe I'm thinking too far ahead.
	But, you know, 2028, DeSantis Lake, could be, right?
	It could be a possibility.
	Yeah.
	Let's just see what happens.
	I mean, then again, I'm kidding myself.
	I think America is going to even be around by 2028.
	But we can all dream, right?
	We can fantasize that our republic will still exist by that time.
	Although we know it probably won't.
	Oh, and by the way, let me mention who I've got coming up for interviews later this week.
	We've got, now take this with a grain of salt because sometimes schedules change, but I've got Jeffrey Prather scheduled.
	I've got Dr.
	Francis Boyle and Dr.
	Robert Malone.
	All this week.
	And then next week, going to talk to Seth Whole House and also then Dr.
	Eben Alexander.
	He is the doctor who died and went to heaven and then came back and told the story and wrote a book about it and it changed his whole life.
	I've talked about his book before.
	We're going to interview him and get the full story of what it's like to literally die and I mean, his brain was gone.
	No, I'm serious.
	His brain was so infected that, I don't know, it shut down, I think.
	We'll let him tell the story.
	But the point is that Dr.
	Alexander, even though he died and his brain shut down, he is still alive.
	So much of a better communicator than Fetterman or Biden, for that matter.
	So think about it.
	A guy who died speaks better than the Democrat Senate candidate and the Democrat, quote, president.
	All right?
	It's just crazy.
	How could it be like that?
	Shouldn't we demand people who can cognitively function to be representing us in the Senate and in the Oval Office, for example?
	I mean, just, I don't know.
	They should make sense that when they speak, people should be able to parse it like, oh, that was a sentence.
	I see.
	There's a grammatical structure.
	These words and concepts are related to each other.
	There is a hierarchical structure with the series of words coming out of this person's mouth.
	But with Fetterman and Biden, you can't do that.
	So I think it'd be an amazing Saturday Night Live skit just to have actual Joe Biden and this Fetterman guy just like host Saturday Night Live with an open mic and just tell them, go for it.
	Just whatever you want to do.
	It's going to be wild.
	Just start talking, man.
	It's a whole show.
	Anyway, that's my podcast for today.
	I'm just too blown away to even continue with commenting on that.
	What a wild time.
	We live in such a crazy world, and it's like any day the world could break.
	You have that feeling sometimes?
	Just any moment, it could all break.
	You could be driving to the store to pick up bread or something, and it's like, oh, banking system has collapsed.
	Oh, wow.
	Or, you know, you're going to work, and boom, we're in World War III, nukes have gone off.
	Okay.
	Well, what do we do now?
	It just feels like everything could break or something, something big could break at any moment.
	And it's a difficult feeling to navigate because, you know, you don't feel anchored, right?
	You feel like you're drifting around in this world a little bit.
	And I see it in people.
	And it's so important during these times, I believe, to re-anchor yourself in a couple of key ways.
	Well, let's name three.
	Number one, time in nature.
	So be sure to spend some time, even if it's just...
	In your backyard.
	Wild harvest some dandelions or something.
	Whatever it is.
	Take a walk in the woods.
	Visit the creek.
	Whatever it is that you do.
	Secondly, spend time with family members that are supportive of you, which is probably not going to include those who have been jabbed, because that has split families, as you know.
	But spend some time with family and friends who are supportive.
	And then thirdly, of course, ask God for support.
	Spend some time in prayer.
	I did that yesterday.
	I mean, I was really praying for guidance.
	And today, you know, I pray for protection.
	I pray for safety.
	I pray for wisdom.
	I pray for the ability to see what needs to be stated here.
	You know, it's like, dear God, show me what words people need to hear today to help them through what's coming.
	You know, that kind of thing.
	Sometimes I say it out loud right before I start a podcast.
	I just ask God for help and guidance.
	And that helps to anchor all of us, to have God in our lives, to have Christ, that Christ presence in us.
	I believe it helps, it keeps us more stable, more balanced, more mature, more wise, all of that.
	It's critical to keep in mind.
	And you might say, well, what are you talking about, Mike?
	You're not joking around and stuff.
	You're doing voice impersonations and you're mocking Fetterman.
	That doesn't sound Christ-like.
	Well, hey, it's okay.
	To laugh about humanity.
	You know, not to mock people for, you know, ethnicity or skin color or anything like that, but to mock people for doing stupid things like running for Senate when you can't speak.
	That's okay.
	That's perfectly okay.
	We have to laugh at ourselves too, though, right?
	That's why, you know, I joke about myself sometimes too.
	And that's totally okay.
	Like snorting xylitol and iodine, which again is not a recreational habit, I assure you.
	But it's okay to joke about ourselves and laugh at ourselves.
	And laughter, one of the reasons I put it into every podcast is because being able to laugh is so healthy and it is so necessary in this time.
	And anybody can come along and say, well, that's inappropriate and you can't laugh about that.
	Well, who are you?
	The laugh police?
	Actually, humor can be applied to anything.
	Humor can be applied to anything.
	Doesn't mean we're making fun of a person in a bad situation, but we have to have the ability to laugh and to stimulate our brains or our funny bones, I guess, in the process.
	That's what Dr.
	Oz should have asked Fetterman.
	Like, hey, anatomy question, where is the funny bone in the body?
	See if Fetterman knows that.
	Because Dr.
	Oz knows there's no funny bone.
	Fetterman would be like, is it here?
	Nope.
	Guess again.
	He probably thinks the funny bone is that lump on his neck.
	He's like, nope, that's the bioparasite, actually.
	That's your commanding AI robotic overlord creature.
	That's about to be birthed, by the way.
	I'm wondering about that.
	You notice in the debate they had a camera angle that didn't show that.
	Made sure that the bioparasite is out of the frame.
	Yeah, you know, he could hide walkie-talkies in there, though, by the way.
	Have, like, two-way communication with the debate commanders.
	Tell him what to say.
	He could hide all kinds of electronics in there.
	Seriously, just open it up, stuff in some secret comms equipment.
	He could have, like, satellite phones in there and then just sew it back up for the debate.
	He could be getting messages from, you know, Starlink.
	All right.
	Anyway, have a great day.
	We'll talk again tomorrow.
	We'll see what happens.
	We'll see if the world is still here.
	If not, you know, God bless all of you and we'll meet again another time in another place, I suppose.
	But maybe we'll still be online and we'll be able to communicate.
	So until then, be safe.
	Take care.
	A global reset is coming.
	And that's why I've recorded a new nine-hour audiobook.
	It's called The Global Reset Survival Guide.
	You can download it for free by subscribing to the naturalnews.com email newsletter, which is also free.
	I'll describe how the monetary system fails.
	I also cover emergency medicine and first aid and what to buy to help you avoid infections.
	So download this guide.
	It's free.

▲