Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 29, 2023 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

02:07:12

Brighteon Broadcast News, Mar 29, 2023 - Trans school shooter showcases how WOKE culture produces da

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Brighton Broadcast News for Wednesday, March 29th, 2020.
	I'm Mike Adams.
	Thank you for joining me today.
	We've got a lot of great content coming up for you today, specifically two interviews.
	We have Ann VanderSteel, who's a fellow host here on BrightTown.TV. She's got a fantastic show called Right Now with Ann VanderSteel.
	I've got an interview with her coming up where we talk about all kinds of topics including globalism, depopulation, medical violence against patients, the banking system, money printing, bailouts, and so much more.
	We've also got an interview in studio with Jason Fick who is, I think, the preeminent expert in Section 230 and he brings to us an explanation of why the courts are wrong.
	When they protect big tech against their malicious, unlawful, unconstitutional censorship actions that have deplatformed and silenced the truth-tellers in America, people like you and I and Donald Trump and so many others.
	So Jason Fick in studio coming up and then Ann VanderSteel joins us via a remote video interview in her new studio, her new BrightShown.TV studio, which looks amazing.
	It's going to be great.
	You're going to love that.
	Today's show here is brought to you by HealthRangerStore.com.
	I want to mention two new products we have here.
	We've got CardioClear, which combines Arjuna herb or Arjuna, as some people say, with Hawthorne.
	CardioClear, check out the ingredients, check out the efficacy of that product.
	It's really a great natural supplement.
	And then we have Liposomal Zinc.
	In these tincture bottles here.
	Liposomal zinc, it's the most delicious zinc that I've ever tasted.
	Zinc is usually kind of nasty tasting, but honestly, I zinc, this is the best tasting zinc.
	I'm sorry.
	Bad joke.
	Cold joke day here on the set.
	But no, seriously, it's a great tasting liposomal zinc.
	So if you want to get some zinc into your diet, if you zinc that's right for you, then go for it.
	HealthRangerStore.com.
	I apologize for the bad humor.
	Now, moving on to Censored.News.
	This is the website, of course, where I am posting stories.
	I've been a little bit slow here the last couple of days because I've been doing some training.
	I've had some meetings.
	It's been a little insane.
	But starting out today, of course, you know the Nashville Shooter.
	Turned out to be a transgender.
	Let me show you this from the New York Post.
	Here's the headline.
	Transgender killer targets Christian school.
	Manifesto leads to six dead, including three young kids.
	This is the New York Post.
	Now, the mainstream media is trying to downplay the fact that this killer, this murderer, was in fact transgender.
	The mainstream media is trying to make people forget or even not to be aware that this is a transgender person.
	And the mainstream media is running cover for the mass mental illness that seems quite pervasive in the trans community.
	Now, not to say that every trans person is mentally ill, but there's a very high rate of mental illness.
	And this person reportedly was actually under treatment for mental illness.
	So you may wonder, well, how was she or he, I'm not even sure what gender this person wanted to be called, but he or she, this killer, how was this killer able to legally purchase firearms?
	If I believe on the firearms form, I think it's the 4473, you're supposed to indicate whether you're under treatment for mental illness.
	I don't recall the exact language of the form, but I think you're not allowed to buy firearms if you are being treated for certain types of mental illness.
	So it's possible, although maybe more information is needed on this, it's possible this person lied and broke the law in order to acquire a firearm.
	The other thing that's important to note is that the firearm that was used in this has been identified as a Caltech, I think a Sub-2000, which is a 9mm firearm.
	Calling it a rifle is kind of, it's a little, it doesn't quite deserve to be called a rifle.
	It's not really a rifle.
	It uses Glock magazines and 9mm ammo.
	It's just kind of a, well...
	It's a pistol caliber carbine, as they're called, a PCC. And I own one of these guns, by the way, and they're not very good.
	They're not very good at all.
	Nevertheless, this transgender killer, as the New York Post reports, was able to use this somewhat not-that-great firearm to murder six innocent Christians.
	And it brings up the question, Is this the transgender kinetic war phase against Christians?
	Because it seems like that's the case.
	And I think we have to take a hard look at mass mental illness in the transgender communities.
	Because just at the outset, anybody who is so dissociated from their own body, to think that they're not what they actually physically are, you know, if you're born a male, but then you decide that you're going to wish that you're a female, and you pretend that you're a female, that's dissociation.
	That's at minimum a kind of confusion or a, I don't know, dysphoria, as it's sometimes called, gender dysphoria.
	Maybe a psychiatrist could chime in on this.
	But the idea that the culture now is pushing this mental illness onto children and saying that, yes, if you're a boy, you can become a girl.
	Yeah, sure, go right ahead.
	The schools are, in many cases...
	Intentionally trying to confuse children.
	They are indoctrinating children with mass mental illness, is my point.
	This is happening in media, in culture, in movies, in television.
	It's happening in public schools.
	So, I believe that what's happening in America today is that our culture has been so twisted, so distorted, so occupied by Luciferians that America and to some extent Canada and other Western nations have become mental illness factories for children where they're trying so occupied by Luciferians that America and to some extent Canada and other Western nations have become mental illness factories for children where they're trying to convince children to mutilate themselves or
	This idea of self-mutilation or allowing others to mutilate you, this has always been recognized as a symptom of mental illness.
	It's only now with the, well, the mentally ill left in society today saying that, no, it's okay to chop off their reproductive organs because, you know, it's gender-affirming surgery.
	No, it isn't.
	It's mutilation of children.
	And when society doesn't value the bodies of children and teaches them not to value themselves or their own bodies, then of course many of those children decide that they will follow that and that they won't value their own bodies.
	And so of course they decide on mutilations, which is what transgenderism is.
	Or at least that's a component of it.
	Transgenderism pushes chemical castration of children, genital mutilation, surgical procedures, but also a psychological trauma onto these children.
	And then, you know, here we go.
	oh, this 28-year-old person, not a child in this case, but is clearly a victim of a society that's pushing a transgenderism doctrine of sorts, that's pushing this mass mental illness and teaching people that they shouldn't value the lives of either that's pushing this mass mental illness and teaching people that they shouldn't value And so I think that outbursts of violence are inherent in the kind of indoctrination of gender confusion that is being pushed on children today.
	And I think we're going to see a wave of transgender violence against innocent people, Christians and otherwise.
	And where the left wants to attack guns, we should be taking a harder look at the mind of the person who pulled the trigger of the gun.
	The gun didn't kill people.
	It didn't kill anybody, especially this Caltech Sub-2000, which kind of sucks as a firearm.
	I'm sorry if you think otherwise.
	It's just not a very good gun.
	But the gun didn't kill anybody.
	It's the mind behind the gun, pulling the trigger, that actually killed people.
	And the mind of this person has been heavily polluted by this pro-transgenderism brainwashing or indoctrination across culture and across society.
	And if we don't respect the minds of children and we don't respect, obviously, the physical bodies of children, teach them to respect their own bodies, then why should we expect them to respect the lives of others?
	They will not.
	They will carry out more acts of violence and more innocent people will die.
	Now, as Breitbart reports, check out this story, Nashville Christian shooter was the second transgender female killer in four years.
	And here's a picture of this one.
	But as this story cites, in 2019, another person here, age 17, when she helped kill One teenager at a school in Colorado while claiming to be a transgender.
	So it goes on to talk about how female mass shooters are quite rare, but masculinization treatments, i.e.
	transgenderism treatments, makes these women more likely to engage in acts of violence.
	There's something about the artificial hormones that can turn these people into...
	Well, violent killers.
	And so the question is, whose fault is that?
	Clearly, some of the fault lies or should rest on the killer herself or himself.
	But who turned that person into a killer?
	Who promoted transgenderism?
	Who said it's okay to reject your body?
	Who said that you shouldn't value your body, that you should mutilate your body?
	That's the left.
	That's the LGBT movement that's being pushed by leftists, that's being pushed by big tech and the virtue signaling corporations, from the shoe companies and the candy companies and Kellogg's and airline companies and all of it.
	They're pushing this transgenderism, which is creating a factory of future mass murderers who are driven out of their right minds into lunacy, derangement, and violence.
	You can't just blame the guns for this.
	You have to look at the person who pulled the trigger.
	So society is going to change quite dramatically with this.
	And again, the left doesn't even value the lives of children, unborn children or recently born children either.
	So the political left in America today is all about destroying, annihilating children, annihilating their bodies.
	Through gender mutilations or annihilating their minds through psychological trauma, which is part of the whole transgenderism movement as well, but also annihilating children in the womb.
	The abortion industry, it has the same Luciferian values as the transgenderism push onto these children, and transgenderism is in many ways, it runs parallel with Satanism and Luciferianism because it denies The divinity of the body, the life and the body, both gifts from God.
	If you reject yourself, if you reject your body, then you reject God because God gave you that body and gave you your life as a gift.
	And by rejecting that gift, you are rejecting God.
	And of course, remember that Satanism is promoted through the idea of freedom.
	Oh, you have the freedom to be whatever you want to be.
	You have the freedom to transition from a male to a female, or back and forth, or vice versa, or to be another species, if you wish.
	That's called freedom, according to the Satanists.
	That's not freedom.
	That is self-mutilation, and that is Luciferianism disguised as freedom.
	You are not trapped in your body.
	You are in fact given a gift of your body.
	And whatever you want to do in your life, even in terms of your sexual preferences, you can still acknowledge the body that you have.
	You don't have to mutilate your body.
	In order to experience freedom in this world, obviously, but that's the message of the left, that only through mutilation can children become whole, which is so contradictory.
	It's so bizarre, right?
	Cutting off your parts makes you whole.
	That's what the left believes.
	And anyone who believes that, I think, is mentally ill.
	So the mass mental illness is not just the trans victims, the children who are indoctrinated into this.
	The mental illness...
	has infested the minds of those who are promoting this.
	The surgeons, the teachers, the school counselors, the so-called journalists, the tech platform censors The Hollywood script writers.
	These people are mentally ill and they prey on children.
	And this has got to stop in our society if we ever hope to have a society with values that make it sustainable.
	And frankly, we've got to get God and the Bible and Christ back into our society and back into our lives.
	Because if you don't, well, you see where it goes.
	Now, the next story...
	Also out of the New York Post is relevant to this.
	And here's the headline.
	Up to 80% of workers could see their jobs impacted by AI. And, I mean, think about this.
	It doesn't mean that 80% of the workers would be completely replaced by AI, but it says that 80% of the workforce could have 10% of the work tasks affected, that 19% of workers could find half of their duties impacted by GPT. This is just the beginning, folks.
	What's happening is AI is making humans obsolete in white-collar jobs.
	And this is part of transhumanism.
	So it's related to what we just said, which is transgenderism.
	But transhumanism is, of course, replacing humans in society or trying to contort humanity into merging with the machines.
	And Merging your job with a machine is one step in that process.
	Saying that, oh, you being human, that's not good enough because this machine can write these descriptions better than you can or can produce this art better than you can.
	Let me let you in on an interesting little secret here.
	We've been playing around with AI here at Brighttown.com to create thumbnails, thumbnail art.
	But we're not using it.
	In fact, the thumbnail to this episode might be AI created.
	And I know that the thumbnails of a couple other days are at least partially AI created.
	But we're not using AI to replace anybody.
	We're not firing anybody and saying, oh, AI can do your job.
	We still have a person in the loop, a human being, who is It's commanding the AI, hey, create a picture with a zombie chicken, for example, or create a picture of a crowd running away from collapsing buildings on fire.
	But then the human may have to try 10 or 20 different images and then they may have to alter those images or augment them because the human still has the discernment.
	It's the human being that still has the judgment of what is appropriate for this topic.
	AI systems have no sense of what is appropriate.
	And sadly, AI systems are being taught the values of the woke left.
	And those values have total disdain for human life.
	Those are values that reject the divinity of a child.
	Those are values that are pro-murder, pro-violence against children, as we just talked about.
	Transgenderism, mutilations of children.
	It is these leftists who believe these insane things that are building the AI systems.
	And that's why ChatGPT is a woke AI Terminator type of technology.
	And I even did a mini-documentary on this called Woke AI Terminators.
	And that was uploaded to YouTube.
	YouTube banned it.
	Why?
	Because YouTube wants Woke AI Terminators.
	They want AI systems that do not value human beings in the same way that these left-wing people don't value human beings.
	Because they don't want systems rooted in God and life and ethics and morality.
	They want systems rooted in Satanism, transhumanism, artificial intelligence, replacing humans, making them obsolete, mutilating them, murdering children, Hitting them with biological weapons, jabbing them with infertility and depopulation drugs and so on.
	That's what the left wants and that's how AI will be used against you.
	AI will be used to replace human beings.
	And then, that's just in the job role, and then AI will be put into the Terminator drones.
	These will mostly be drones to hunt down and kill human beings.
	So we're looking at an AI Terminator future that is just right around the corner.
	I mean, it's practically here.
	They already have human hunting drones being used in Ukraine right now.
	When they put an AI system on top of that, The AI system with the values of the left can say, oh, well, guess what?
	We looked at the social media posts of all these people that live in this neighborhood over here, and we found out that we don't like these certain people.
	Oh, they're conservatives or they're Christians or they have pro-human values.
	Well, they need to be terminated, says the woke AI system, because the woke AI system doesn't value life because it was programmed by left-wing lunatics who murder children and mutilate babies.
	Okay, so then those AI drones will seek out the Christians and just do kamikaze drone strikes and take out all the Christians.
	So if you think that the transgender shooter in Nashville was the last of this, They're going to take humans out of the loop, folks.
	It's not even going to be transgender shooters.
	It's going to be woke AI Terminator kamikaze drones seeking out Christians and blowing them up all across American cities.
	That's what's coming because the AI systems are...
	Again, being given those anti-life values and left-wing society that runs AI now hates Christians and hates humanity, by the way.
	They literally hate human beings.
	They hate themselves.
	They hate their children.
	They hate America.
	They hate the Constitution, the First Amendment.
	They hate freedom of speech.
	They hate the Bill of Rights.
	They hate everything that America was founded on and they hate everything that humanity stands for.
	No wonder they mutilate themselves.
	That's just a starting point.
	Really, they want to mutilate you.
	They want to exterminate you.
	They're just using AI terminator systems as a proxy for the hatred that the left already has innately against humanity.
	So the answer to all of this is, frankly, to bring Jesus back into our lives.
	A world where the ideas of Christianity and Jesus and divinity and God, where those ideas dominate, that's a world where we can have families and sustainability.
	That's a world where we have a future.
	But a world dominated by woke AI Terminator robots programmed by child murdering, child mutilating, radical left-wing lunatics who think that a man can become a woman, that society has no future whatsoever.
	If we don't, in fact, stop the woke...
	You know how they say, get woke, go broke?
	If we don't stop the woke, our entire civilization will be broke.
	It's kind of slang.
	I mean, broken.
	But get woke, go broke.
	The same thing applies on a civilization level.
	If we don't get back to core values of protecting children and having children and having mothers and fathers and understanding there's a difference between a man and a woman, for God's sake.
	If we don't get back to these core values, we don't have a future as society.
	And we already have a blueprint for this.
	The blueprint, it's called the Bible.
	The blueprint is written right there in Scripture.
	All you have to do is open it up and read the forbidden text, if you will, because it's being banned almost everywhere.
	So think about which side you want to be on here, folks.
	Do you want to be on the side of the child mutilators and the terminators?
	Or do you want to be on the side of God and humanity?
	That's your choice right now.
	And there's no middle ground left.
	That's your choice.
	You either choose Satanism and death and mutilations and suffering and child destruction, or you choose God and you choose freedom, you choose humanity, consciousness, you choose families and mothers and fathers that can procreate and actually build a future where children can be safe in their own bodies without being assaulted psychologically, medically, kinetically by a society that wants to destroy them.
	That's my take on this.
	So the violence against children will only increase unless we stop the woke.
	We need to make this a very high priority or we don't have a society remaining.
	Now, coming up next is an interview, again, with Ann VanderSteel and then Jason Fick.
	So those two interviews back-to-back, I think you will find them truly fascinating, informative, eye-opening as usual.
	So we'll go right to those next.
	Welcome to today's interview on Brighteon.tv and Brighteon.com.
	I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon, and I am so pleased to bring in our guest today.
	In her new studio, it's Anne VanderSteel, and she has just a bombshell new show on Brighteon.tv.
	I believe it's at 8 Eastern, Monday through Friday, but she can correct me if that's wrong.
	But Anne, welcome to the show.
	It's great to have you on.
	Mike, always a pleasure to see you.
	And yes, thanks to Brighteon and your incredible team.
	I am sitting in a beautiful studio, so it's a blessing to be here and part of this great network.
	I know incredible things are coming every single day, in fact, out of this team over at Brighteon.
	Well, it's just amazing.
	Your show, first of all, I just have to commend you.
	It's a hard-hitting, fast-paced.
	You're hitting the big headlines of the day.
	You don't get distracted like I do sometimes.
	I'll go too far down the rabbit hole on one story.
	But you're covering the stories.
	How's that new show format going for you?
	Well, you know what?
	It's actually kind of easy for me because this is what I'm used to doing.
	I like putting together the full geopolitical look at the world for my audience because I think it's important for people to understand.
	Rabbit holes are significant because people fully understand exactly what happened in one instance.
	But when you can put all those rabbit holes together and string them together into a full context for people to understand how everything is related...
	It gets Americans particularly out of their comfort zone to understand the world doesn't revolve around the United States as we've been led to believe.
	And I think it's important for people to see how everything is connected so that they can start to understand the psyop because it is just one giant psyop after another.
	And it's sort of like walking through a tunnel with bombs going off around you everywhere.
	Those are distractions.
	Where you're going is critical and you need to understand what that path is so you can get there safely.
	And I think what you're doing with explaining The prepping and the monetization, what's happening with our financial system, and the guests you're bringing on are so critical because people get the full understanding.
	Now we've got to put it together to help people navigate safely to the other side.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And you're really good at doing that for people.
	In fact, I want to ask you, there's a story you mentioned that I know you've been covering quite a bit.
	It's about Sarasota.
	Is it a hospital or a clinic?
	What's the official name?
	So Sarasota Memorial Hospital, they're one of the largest employers in South Florida, frankly.
	And it's a great hospital system.
	They do great work there.
	Unfortunately, they become victim of the COVID money, the PPP money, that incredible money that gets spent when people are put on a ventilator or they're given remdesivir for a course or two.
	And sadly, they have ignored the What is clearly evidence that even the WHO said after the Ebola trials they would never use remdesivir.
	In 2018 and 19, they discovered remdesivir killed somewhere between 53 and 86 percent of the patients, depending on where they were in the Ebola cycle.
	So the WHO even said, no, we won't use it.
	But sadly, Fauci lied and said, hey, we've got to use this because it proved efficacious.
	And so he, of course, dictates what happens over at the CDC and the FDA with all the other criminal cronies over there, the unelected bureaucrats.
	And now we have protocols being delivered through hospital systems nationwide that, like here in Florida, because there is an We have incentivization to promote these protocols which kill people, but also you have coverage.
	Ron DeSantis signed SB 72 into law, which says, As long as you're using CDC sanctioned protocols, the hospital system or the medical provider will not be penalized.
	They will not be held accountable for anything that happens that's bad.
	And so, you know, this has been giving people cover and liability protection while they're killing people in the hospitals.
	And let's not forget, they've also done it very cruelly and heartlessly by just, you know, giving family members the opportunity to wave goodbye on a FaceTime call and not permitting them into the hospital rooms while It doesn't matter if it's food being delivered or a bed change or whatever.
	Other people can go in there, but family has been, you know, denied.
	So this is what is sadly happening in Sarasota.
	We've been calling attention to this, and we've raised a lot of noise, Mike, thanks to Brighteon showing up at our press conference last week.
	We had a huge outpouring of all kinds of media that were basically slamming all of us medical freedom fighters, including the New York Times, because we were making so much noise and calling attention to the travesty going on right here in South Florida.
	Yeah, you know, how dare you call out the medical violence that's being carried out, I would say, by these hospitals against their own patients.
	You know, if you or I were to go commit an act of violence against some innocent person, that would be assault.
	But somehow when it's in a hospital room and it's chemical violence or ventilator violence or vaccine violence, that's magically okay because the CDC says that's good.
	Well, the CDC is a criminal front for big pharma.
	The CDC is involved in, in my opinion, mass genocide against the human race.
	And they have killed millions of Americans over many decades with deliberate depopulation policies at the CDC and the FDA. But I mean, that's my opinion.
	But even if people disagree with that, don't we have the right to express these concerns and challenge the medical establishment there and say, hey, what are you doing?
	Why are people dying under your care?
	You're absolutely right.
	And in fact, we witnessed at a public comment.
	So what's nice about Sarasota Memorial Hospital is that they actually, because they're taxpayer-funded, they have public comment during their hospital board meetings, which occur monthly.
	Now, up until December, these hospital board meetings, while they're held in a giant auditorium where grand rounds are performed and physicians come in and educate, they were fairly benign and sleepy with nobody in attendance except the board.
	Well, fast forward to what we now understand with the killing fields that they've turned into, you've got public showing up that are demanding to be heard because their loved one was murdered.
	In these hospitals based on these protocols.
	We were able to generate so much enthusiasm, not only locally in the community, but nationwide, that we had doctors coming in, including Dr.
	Artis, who flew in.
	Other folks came in from all over the country to speak.
	But one local doctor, Dr.
	John Littell, who was up in Ocala about three hours away, took time out of his busy day to come and speak to the hospital board for the We're good to
	go.
	Fast forward to last week, their next hospital board meeting, we had a press conference.
	And up into the press conference, a lot of mainstream publications, including New York Times, were all calling us conspiracy theorists, etc.
	So what did we do?
	Representing, you know, Brighteon, representing the Zelenko Freedom Foundation.
	Mike, we came armed with the facts, the facts that the WHO said no to remdesivir, the facts that the NIH had studied hydroxychloroquine in 2005 and showed it was efficacious for coronaviruses.
	And we just brought all this information forward, including the fact that the now deputy director for the CDC says that these vaccines aren't safe.
	They're seeing a lot of adverse events.
	So how is the hospital going to reconcile this, Mike, when you move forward?
	They're going to be looking at liability claims all over the place if they don't stop and change direction now.
	And they have the opportunity to lead everybody out of this dark tunnel nationwide since the spotlight is on them.
	Don't you find it interesting that the most evil things that are being carried out in society by governments and corporations are always granted legal immunity?
	For example, you just mentioned hospitals.
	As long as they're following CDC guidelines, then in the state of Florida now apparently they cannot be sued.
	I don't know the details of that law, but I think that's the overall emphasis of it.
	And then also with big tech.
	Big tech is granted.
	I was just interviewing Jason Fick here in studio.
	Big tech is granted license to censor you.
	You can't sue them.
	They have legal immunity, even though they violate the very letter of the law that was originally written for that, Section 230, as it's called.
	And then the U.S. military complex.
	When they go and bomb another country or bomb, let's say, the Nord Stream Pipeline, And they commit an act of terrorism against Germany and Europe.
	Well, it's total legal immunity because of plausible deniability.
	Meanwhile, you and I get blamed by, let's say, the New York Times or those of us in the alt media blamed and called out as irresponsible people where the real criminals are running free, bombing the world, murdering patients, censoring the truth all over, and nothing ever happens to them.
	Right.
	Well, you know what?
	You used a very important word.
	Legal.
	There's legal, but legal is not lawful, Mike, and lawful is not legal.
	That's why attorneys are there to return you because you are considered corporate fiction by the U.S. government.
	You're dead.
	And that's why you need an attorney to re-present you to the court in their legal system.
	You know, part of the problem is we don't even know where we stand.
	We don't know how to stand and we don't know how to maintain and correct statuses and own the jurists of all areas of law, whether it's on land, on water or up in the air.
	And if you can't stand and you can't be in control of your three areas of the law, then how do you expect to battle the demons who are basically pulling us into, you know, administrative courts left and right?
	You ask, why can't Carrie Lake?
	Why shouldn't she have won?
	Why did, you know, Donald Trump not win?
	Why was he thrown out for lack of standing?
	Well, he's got lack of standing because he's battling in the wrong courts.
	He's not pulling people back into law of the land and fighting over on the constitutional side of things.
	And, of course, If you are corporate fiction as designated by our corporate government, when you got your birth certificate and your social security card, you opted into their corporate system and they can only contract with corporations.
	Corporations can't contract with people.
	They contract with other corporations.
	That's how these vehicles work.
	And so your all caps name, Mike Adams, on your driver's license and passport, bank statements, etc., Represent your corporate fiction, your straw man of yourself.
	And this is a bigger conversation, clearly.
	But this is how they win legally, but we can win lawfully if we actually can control the jurists and the diction, the actual language.
	Remember Bill Clinton, Mike.
	It depends on the definition of is, is.
	He knows about this.
	He knows about language and he knows about the law and he knows what's legal.
	And there are totally different things.
	Yeah, we'll have to have another conversation about that in more detail.
	But I want to ask you right now about DeSantis, because you mentioned him earlier.
	Of course, Trump versus DeSantis seems to be the conversation among candidates for the GOP. Surely the GOP will throw some more rhinos at us at some point.
	Like, here, have a rhino over here and a rhino over there.
	It'll be like rhinos dropping out of the sky.
	Rhino rain day.
	But what's your take on DeSantis versus Trump right now, based on what you know today?
	I know it can change, but what's your take right now?
	Well, look, Ron DeSantis' window dressing looks really good.
	Florida has weathered the COVID pandemic very well overall.
	I mean, it started out rocky.
	He locked us down because he didn't know what he was really doing.
	He closed the beaches.
	And I remember thinking to myself, vitamin D, anybody?
	This is where you get your son.
	You want vitamin D for your immune system.
	But he's done a lot of things that were great for the state of Florida.
	He opened us up.
	However, that being said, you know, he still signed a bill.
	I think it's SB 60.
	Forgive me on the number.
	I could be wrong on the number, but he did sign a bill that allows judges to declare needles in the arms of everybody in Florida if he thinks there's something that needs to be prevented.
	He's also got this bill that gives indemnity to the hospitals if they're killing you using COVID protocols, which have now thoroughly been debunked as not safe and effective.
	Remdesivir is not good.
	Putting a ventilator in somebody's lungs that have filled up with fluid is just blowing bubbles underwater like a fish tank.
	It's not good.
	You know, understanding that and then you just, you know, rewind the clock to inauguration when he, you know, was re-inaugurated winning in the election.
	Who was standing right behind him?
	Jeb Bush.
	You know, we are seeing the Jeb Bush, Bush dynasty, McCain on steroids all over again.
	And a very good friend of mine who ran the Trump campaign in 2016, her name is Annie Delgado.
	She gets a lot of controversy because she really is a bull in the China shop and she doesn't take anything from anybody.
	She just goes straight for what she thinks is right.
	She ran his Florida Grassroots and Coalition.
	She told me in 2018 when he was elected, she said, Ann, watch out.
	He is John McCain on steroids.
	Well, while we've all benefited during COVID from a DeSantis governorship and, of course, record profits, and he's managed the state fiscally very well, it's not hard to do when you have tourism as your main source of revenue here in addition to everybody moving here because COVID. You've got to watch out because he is a rhino in MAGA clothing.
	And at this point, he should be standing behind the presumptive nominee, which would be Donald Trump.
	Whether you like him or not, that's what you should do.
	But we don't see him giving Trump any accolades.
	In fact, he's positioning himself, in my humble opinion, to pounce on Operation Warp Speed the moment he can.
	And Latipos, our Surgeon General, who has been really good, is really paving that way for him with Standing up and standing out against the vaccines and myocarditis.
	All things you want to do.
	But there's been some information coming out recently that would lead one to believe Trump really didn't know he trusted Burks and everybody.
	He's now finding out.
	Just how bad that advice was.
	So I think we're leading up to this reveal of Trump on the backs.
	That's my question.
	I mean, I even have this internal debate myself, too, is it is has Trump learned the lesson of his first administration that everybody from the establishment will betray him?
	You know, has he learned the lesson enough to know to source people from outside of Washington, D.C. and Virginia, get people from real America, right?
	Bring those people in, people who know how to run businesses, people, doctors who know how to save patients instead of murdering them for profit, right?
	There's a lot of great candidates that could fill a Trump administration, but he's still Trump.
	This is something that's on my mind all the time.
	Trump still won't say That it was a mistake to push Operation Warp Speed.
	Do you think that's going to really hurt him in this election, or will he come around?
	What's your take on that?
	My gut is he's going to come around.
	I just feel that he's going to come around.
	I've actually spoke to people who I'm not privileged.
	I don't feel like it's my place to reveal who these people are, but I do know that President Trump took a meeting with some people that I trust very, very, very much, know them very well, This meeting was supposed to be a five-minute meeting.
	It turned into a two-hour meeting, and he was given a lot of information, source information, data.
	He was given a lot of really good information as to the state of the state.
	And his response was, well, somebody lied to me.
	And he singled out one particular individual.
	Again, I don't want to present too much information.
	It's really not my place to present it.
	But I do trust the people that shared this with me.
	And I do believe this information to be true.
	And this is a recent meeting that took place in the last month or so.
	So I think it's now coming to the point.
	And you're seeing, you know, Kash Patel when he's on tour on the Reawaken tour.
	And now we've got Devin Nunes joining the Reawaken tour.
	I'm speaking at a separate event in Branson this summer, and it's going to be myself, General Flynn, Devin Nunes and a few others.
	So I don't think they're going to put someone that they call a QAnon conspiracy theorist like I've been labeled millions of times in the past to try and discredit things that I brought to the forefront, along with Devin Nunes, if there was going to be a problem.
	And they certainly wouldn't put me on stage with Eric Trump if they thought what I was talking about and all this anti-COVID stuff, if the Trump family wasn't listening, paying attention and trying to understand where all this went wrong.
	And I think you and I know where it went wrong.
	You know, it went wrong a long time ago with Berks and Fauci and Barrack and Daszak and a whole host of other people.
	But it's bigger.
	It's the DOD. It's the whole industrial complex of evil that goes across all of these agencies.
	And I think that is where we need to really focus about dismantling all of it, Mike.
	All of it needs to go.
	Let me remind our viewers that you are also with zfreedomfoundation.org.
	And I've got that website up on my laptop if our producers want to show it.
	And then also you're on brighton.tv.
	And again, your show is at 8 p.m.
	Monday through Friday.
	I've got that.
	And here's Z Freedom Foundation, the Zelenko Foundation.
	And, you know, Ann, you know so many people.
	You interview so many people.
	It's really quite extraordinary.
	That's why we're so thrilled to have you on the Brighttown.tv network, and we support you wholeheartedly in what you're doing.
	Here's my question.
	I had a very interesting guest.
	I know you know who Dr.
	Paul Cottrell is.
	I had him on last week, and he believes he has a blueprint for the next pandemic that's going to be released.
	And that blueprint's going to be SARS plus HIV plus avian flu.
	And then I've found a lot of material that points to avian flu.
	For example, avian flu medication that's being shipped by the cargo plane load.
	Avian flu vaccines are ramping up.
	Avian flu narratives in the media are ramping up.
	Even the National Wildlife Health Federation, I think it's called, under USGS, is talking about this zombie infection where avian flu gets into mammals.
	They're talking about skunks and foxes and so on.
	And it changes their behavior.
	Do you think that they're prepping another big plandemic to try to disrupt a potential Trump victory again?
	They're going to use anything and everything to disrupt Trump.
	But here's the thing.
	We just saw that the Senate today lost the vote.
	In other words, when I say the Senate, I'm saying the people that don't want to give our country our sovereignty to the WHO. The Senate had a vote, and they lost by two votes today.
	Where they would have to agree to vote on whether or not we surrender to an international pandemic treaty or international health regulations to the WHO. Joe Biden took care of that when he signed us over.
	So the real battle to me is if Trump were to come back, let's say Trump flew in on a white horse right now and everybody in that awful White House is gone.
	They're all gone.
	Really, we have a job cut out for us right now because the first thing Trump would have to do is remove us from the WHO. So if they can get a pandemic going before Trump, and assuming that we, you know, we take over these machines, we don't have another machine problem, because here we are, three years later, we still haven't solved the machine problem, you know, so we haven't fixed 2020.
	The voting machines, the counting machines.
	So, you know, this is all about literally, they've got to control the masses as quickly as possible.
	So they started with the Marburg scare a few weeks ago, and dropping Marburg around the place, but we all know Marburg is really hard to transmit.
	It's hard for it to get into a pandemic type phase unless, of course, they've gained a function that.
	But my God, what kind of demons would do that?
	Because that is literally just a horrific way to go.
	But this makes a lot more sense, Mike, because it clearly is it's an RSV.
	It's a respiratory infection and people are accustomed to getting the flu.
	Will they use the WHO?
	We've lost the vote in the Senate.
	Now they've got the WHO and they can say, you know what, we have a pandemic of international health, or what is it, a pandemic health of international concern, a fake.
	They'll send in the troops because they can't really have a Trump election.
	They don't even want the election to happen.
	I'm not sure we'd even have a 2024 election, Mike, right now.
	They need to lock us down.
	And let's not forget our borders and how bad that has been.
	The Russian-age males, the Chinese-age males, all fighting-age males that have come in, in addition to thousands of known terrorists on watch lists, are all in.
	And I believe they're waiting for the signal.
	I mean, there's so much boiling right now between the pilots that want a day or dropping in the skies worldwide.
	That's underreported.
	So we just have a lot of bombs going off.
	Remember the path I talked about we're trying to get where we're trying to go?
	We have all these distraction bombs.
	They're real.
	School shootings, horrible things happening.
	But the point is, it's the WHO that wants this constant chaos so that they can come in and lock us down and roll us into the one world government.
	And don't forget, the IRS, believe it or not, is actually a United Nations chartered organization.
	So that money that you're writing checks to isn't even going to the Treasury.
	It's going right to the World Bank.
	Dr.
	Francis Boyle told me that as soon as the WHO treaty, it's not really a treaty as you know.
	It's an agreement.
	Yeah, but they're kind of calling it a treaty.
	But as soon as this is adopted by the United States, and as you mentioned, the Senate vote just failed to have oversight against that.
	But Dr.
	Boyle said as soon as this is adopted, We should be on the lookout for the next bioweapon release, a pandemic to be deployed.
	And again, this is from the man who wrote the laws against bioweapons development, right?
	Under, I think it was signed by Reagan, in fact.
	And now he's warning about the next bioweapon to drop.
	Well, that WHO... This treaty or agreement, as it's called, as you know, Ann, you've covered this, it allows the WHO to order every local county, every clinic, every hospital, every state, city, and nation to round people up and throw them into quarantine camps, for example, or to require mandatory vaccines.
	This is a global health dictatorship, and it's the perfect setup for the release of this chimeric vaccine.
	Bioweapon, which Dr.
	Cottrell called aerosolized HIV, by the way.
	So it's like all the pieces are lining up.
	How can people not see this?
	Well, again, Mike, they can't see it because they have so many distractions.
	We're launching, like I said, you're going to start to see more and more school shootings.
	Like I said, I'm waiting for the planes to start falling out of the sky.
	They're going to have to have mass chaos all around us so that as they continue to roll this out again, between that and what Bank of America has been filed in terms of a patent, which allows for them to track you, your financial stuff and connect it to the environmental social which allows for them to track you, your financial stuff and connect it to the environmental This is all about rolling all these banks up.
	We're watching the banking industry collapse.
	It's going to roll into a couple of banks.
	Right.
	And then Bank of America with that patent, they may be one of the chosen ones We shall see about how they can control all of us.
	And of course, don't forget, they've always had their depopulation agenda.
	Mike, you've talked about that to your blue in the face, literally.
	I mean, they think there's way too many useless eaters on the planet, so they need to eliminate at least half of us.
	And so this, to them, just to have a pandemic wipe us out, no big deal.
	It gives them another reason to experiment us in their crazy Frankenstein way.
	Remember Fauci and AIDS? He brought all that.
	We didn't have to have any of that.
	That was all Fauci.
	This next weapon to be deployed is, I think, the second half of a binary weapon.
	I mean, what we're finding, even former CDC director Dr.
	Redfield said that the next pandemic will be so much worse than COVID. Well, what was COVID designed to achieve, especially with the mRNA injections?
	Immune suppression.
	And a totalitarian control system to lock down the grid, lock down the supply chain, and establish, I mean, to put in place quarantine laws and medical authoritarianism laws in places like Washington State, Oregon, California, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and, of course, all of the socialist European countries as well, and many other states in the U.S. But now, the original COVID was just...
	To set up humanity for this next bioweapon that conceivably will wipe out those who have weakened immune systems.
	Like the kill shot is coming.
	The kill shot is the next thing, and it doesn't have to be that strong.
	It could be H5N1 humanized, like gain of function for humans, which normally you and I would just fight off, but for those people who have taken, let's say, five injections, it could be very fatal for them.
	In fact, I forgot who said this, but Yeah, it was an expert that was quoted in New Scientist magazine talking about the National Wildlife Health Federation warning about this that said that the fatality rates of this...
	What did they call it?
	This bird flu.
	Yeah, it's an H5N1 bird flu.
	The fatality rate, they said, is on the scale of Ebola.
	In other words, 50%.
	That's what they said.
	Right.
	Well, again, this is all part of their agenda, but I don't want to scare everybody watching this show right now, but Mike, it's been proven that the jabs that people have taken have shed all over us, and I know this to be a fact because I am very diligent about taking all my detox supplements.
	But when I don't, or if I'm around a lot of people who've definitely taken the COVID shot, I call it the headache, and it's right here in the back left of my brain.
	Sure enough, I was doing some reading and some research, and it showed where the jabs are actually concentrating, and there is a spot right back here where some circuitry starts assembling.
	Really?
	This is what happens.
	You know, we've all been exposed to it, probably you less than others.
	I travel a lot, so I'm sure I have picked up a lot of this, you know, shedding while I'm on a flying tin can spreader.
	But, you know, I do everything I can to detox, and we can continually detox, but it's in the air, they're spraying it in the air, it's in the water, and if you're not careful, it's in the food you eat.
	It's everywhere.
	This has been their plan for quite some time.
	So to degrade your immune system, so when the next pandemic happens, And this one is a weaponized bird flu, you know?
	Well, let me share something else with you.
	But by the way, I think we should update the slogan, don't tread on me to don't shed on me.
	Shed on me.
	But one of the drugs that I received a tip from one of my sources, confirmed it with a second source, that one of the drugs that was being airlifted by the pallet in large commercial cargo planes, it was called paramivir.
	And paramivir, if you look this up, you can look it up on Mayo Clinic or Drugs.com or whatever.
	The side effects, I'm not even making this up, the side effects are all zombie side effects.
	And they include like scaly skin, red puffy eyes, confusion, difficulty walking.
	But then there was another side effect that said believing false information even in the presence of facts.
	Apparently, if you take this drug, which is only administered via IV, so they have to have you in the hospital, they keep you there, and they put this in your IV tube, this drug will make you believe false things, such as the next pandemic, and it will turn you into a zombie.
	And then you know how this works, and they can blame the zombie symptoms on...
	The H5N1 and say, look how bad it is.
	These people are getting sick in the hospitals.
	This is the same crap they already pulled the first time around.
	Oh, look at all these people dying.
	Yeah, you killed them.
	Right.
	Right.
	Well, again, this is the playbook.
	And how stupid are we if we're going to accept and regurgitate and just assume that they're here to help?
	Remember, who was it that said, I'm with the government, I'm here to help?
	Famous, you know, five words you never want to hear.
	This is why I go back to these agencies.
	They're fully unconstitutional.
	Never once in our founding fathers' papers were they ever, ever mentioned that we would have a CDC, an NIH, an FDA, a Department of Education, a Department of Energy, a Department of Defense.
	We had our military.
	We didn't need all of this.
	And look at what this has become.
	We are now the victims of a bureaucracy that has just gotten to be so tyrannical and so monolithic.
	You can't get rid of these people.
	You simply can't even fire them.
	And check this out.
	I'm on mayoclinic.org.
	Okay, I'll show my screen, guys.
	Mayoclinic.org.
	And this is for the drug.
	Here it is, paramivir intravenous.
	Okay, this is what was being hauled in in preparation for this pandemic.
	Check out the side effects.
	I'm not even making this up.
	Holding false beliefs that cannot be changed by fact.
	And then check this out.
	Seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there, i.e.
	transgenderism or belief that the Democrats believe in freedom or something like that.
	Red eyes, swollen skin, red skin lesions, often with a purple center.
	This is like a zombie movie.
	I was just going to say, is there any surprise now that Amazon has it in their terms of service, the zombie apocalypse?
	They talk about it.
	And the Amazon web servers, terms of service, they talk about the zombie apocalypse.
	I think it was in section 41 something or other, 41.7 or whatever.
	But it's there.
	It was there.
	And you know what, Mike?
	You're absolutely right.
	Looking at this right now, you're going to see people check into a hospital with flu-like They'll put them on the paramivir.
	Where were these, by the way, where were these being airlifted to?
	Oh, I have a list of cities.
	One of them was in Europe.
	I don't want to give the actual city.
	One was in Europe.
	One was in Texas.
	One was in Australia.
	And then there were a couple other cities on the east and west coast in the U.S. So it was multiple continents.
	Wow.
	Well, folks, you heard it here.
	Mike Adams breaking paramevir and they're going to turn into a zombie apocalypse.
	You'll go in with a sniffle and come out a zombie, but you'll believe anything that they tell you.
	What kind of drug causes blistering, peeling, or loosening of the skin?
	Are you kidding me?
	Why did you take it?
	Like, what the?
	Cracks in the skin, difficulty swallowing, diarrhea, fast heartbeat, hives, itching.
	I mean, I don't mean to spend so much time on this, but I read these, you know, loss of heat from the body.
	It's like a cold, reanimated zombie corpse lumbering down the street with red eyes.
	It's like, oh my gosh, what is this?
	Like a Nancy Pelosi press event?
	What's going on?
	I don't know.
	But it's...
	You see them just setting this up.
	Like they're pulling the same narrative again.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	This is the same playbook.
	The problem is, Mike, these people don't really have an original thought.
	They recycle their best material.
	And if we fell for it the first time or the second time, they feel like we're going to fall for the third or fourth.
	They can just keep doing it over and over.
	I don't know.
	So many people have taken this injection, which frankly has lobotomized many.
	I feel that people's ability to think cogently, to think sort of what happens next, like if I do this, then what happens next?
	People just have lost the ability to sort of reason with anything.
	If you travel at all and you walk around in the public spaces, you see how people sort of navigate where they're going.
	It's as if they're missing a gear.
	They can't quite get into overdrive.
	They certainly can't get past second gear.
	They just simply can't even get to the third or fourth gear.
	It's really tragic what I've seen happen in the public space, just moving around, people not being able to make decisions quickly.
	And if they do, they make the wrong one.
	Or they sort of stress out over which latte to buy at Starbucks.
	I mean, it's really quite extraordinary to see what's happened to people's cognitive abilities since they started taking these jabs.
	They have been, what I would call, lobotomized.
	These are lobotomies.
	Absolutely.
	You nailed it there, Anne.
	And it's infertility, and of course, it's depopulation, mass global genocide.
	Did you know, by the way, that the WHO has an agreement in place, I just saw this last week, To take 10% of the production of vaccines right off the production lines of 14 manufacturers of vaccines, 10% to send them to, quote, low-income countries, which means, by the WHO, it means Africa.
	It means African nations, people of color.
	This is the anti-black genocide of the WHO, once again, rearing its ugly head.
	They're declaring war on Africa.
	And It's just like the U.S. government ran medical experiments on black soldiers or black prisoners or black children.
	Fauci murdered black children in New York for his AIDS drugs experiments.
	This is the war on black people all around the world yet again.
	Well, you know what's interesting, Mike, is that the indigenous people around the world, these are non-UN treaty nations, nations that are of indigenous people that have not become members of the United Nations, thank God.
	They actually outnumber the number of member nations in the United Nations.
	So if these if these nations were to say we are not participating in the who we're not participating in part of this next global pandemic and they were to join the who they could actually outvote the member nations of the World Homicide Organization.
	So there is something to be said for these indigenous nations.
	We have them right here in our own country.
	You know, we have the MODOK nation.
	We have Seminole nation.
	We have all these indigenous tribes that live right here in the United States that actually have weight.
	They actually rank in terms of the global populist vote.
	So there is something to be said for perhaps maybe that is the strategy.
	And it sort of kind of goes along with the whole state national exiting the system type strategy where you're not a party to the corrupt corporation, which is, in fact, what we have running this country right now.
	We don't have a government of by or for.
	Right.
	We have a corrupt corporate corporatocracy that is basically fascism taken over our government.
	And is dictating to us based on their profit margins and what their ideology is in terms of their depopulation agenda to basically destroy everybody.
	You know, what strikes me about this too, I don't know what your thoughts are on crypto, but I've become way more favorable to crypto as an alternative since the banking system is totally insolvent and it is failing.
	And all the arguments they made about crypto actually apply better to the banks.
	It's like, oh, it's so risky.
	You mean...
	Riskier than losing everything in Silicon Valley Bank over a weekend.
	That was 100% loss until the bailout happened.
	But here's something interesting about depopulation.
	You notice that crypto is really making headway in Africa.
	So the African people, the African nations where people typically don't bank, they don't have bank accounts, they're buying and selling and trading using crypto.
	Because even though they don't have a bank account, they can often afford a mobile device and they can still do crypto transactions.
	So I think that the globalists are at war with any kind of currency that they don't control, especially crypto that they don't control, although they want a digital dollar.
	And then they're trying to kill off people of color, indigenous people around the world, because those people are just on the brink of discovering financial freedom without a central bank.
	Does that make sense?
	Right.
	It makes total sense.
	In fact, I've got another little spin on this for you, and I just learned this recently, which I think is fascinating.
	Of course, if you remember, China kicked Bitcoin out because it was using too much energy.
	They didn't want all that energy consumption.
	There is now a new market I've just learned of where methane gas, which is released from oil wells, right?
	It's just a natural byproduct, and it's usually capped because, you know...
	Whatever.
	But now you can turn that methane into an actual energy source to power the crypto mining.
	So can you imagine the cheap energy to power crypto, what that's going to mean for all the other nations that are in the BRICS countries, which now equate to about 85% of the world's population are now in BRICS and it's growing every day?
	And you're right.
	It's the central war against bankers and BRICS is a big component of that.
	And it's being fought through Ukraine in some large part, essentially.
	And that's good for us because it's exposing our DOD as being the demons that they are with all of their bioweapon labs over there targeting Slavic DNA. But again, I think crypto is going to be very significant moving forward.
	But also, I mean, the gold-silver play and then, of course, the cryptos that are going to be backed by gold and silver.
	Exactly.
	And I've talked to some folks that have technology that can now move gold and silver around Very elegantly so that you're not actually flying pallets around, per se, but that you can constantly keep a measure of what your gold and silver is based on your crypto balances.
	So we're moving in the right direction for that.
	I agree, and I've been watching that very carefully as well.
	I think, I mean, let's be honest, you and I both, Anne, for every story that we do publicly, there's another story that is not yet ready to go public that we're watching because there's so much happening.
	Let me give you one example.
	Cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions, right?
	So I'm really tied into certain people in the linear community.
	And that would set free all the people of the world because it would mean decentralized energy in the same way that decentralized money sets you free from a central bank.
	Decentralized energy sets you free from government regulated energy companies and having to live close to a city to get power.
	So of course this is being suppressed, right?
	In the same way that there's a war on crypto, there's a war on decentralized energy, there's a war on decentralized speech, which is what all this censorship is all about.
	So it's a war against humanity's freedom in order to consolidate and centralize everything under the control of these evil Luciferian globalists who hate humanity.
	That's what it is.
	Hey, humanity.
	And they're privateers.
	They're profiteers.
	They are putting profits over people.
	I mean, Mike, I know people that are running around with Tesla coils that work.
	I mean, free energy has been there.
	It's been there for a long time.
	But these people can't be public because they get killed.
	Sort of like the cancer doctors, the ones that could treat cancer.
	We've lost hundreds of doctors that could treat cancer without Big Pharma.
	They've all been slaughtered.
	So this is, again, it's the war on humanity.
	It's the war on God who gave us freedom.
	Remember that.
	I mean, I say this over and over on a daily basis.
	God gave us our rights.
	He gave us freedom.
	We constituted government to protect those freedoms and we basically memorialize them in our founding papers, our constitution, our declaration, our Northwest Ordinance.
	All these papers are very important to defining who we are and how we protect our freedoms, but like you said, these same evil demons They are hell, but they don't believe in God, and they're absolutely committed to removing us from the planet so they can continue to rule the planet per their ideology, which is satanic in nature.
	And I think what unfortunately...
	I used to talk about this with some folks all the time.
	How do we wake people up?
	Well, you've got to take over the airwaves, and Brighton is doing a heck of a job in promoting the information.
	But we need to take them over every digital billboard, every radio station.
	We've got to be everywhere with everything.
	And what is it people are going to wake up?
	What's going to grab people, Mike?
	If they see videos, and I'm sorry for your audience, this is graphic, but if they see videos of naked children, obviously blurred out, faces and body parts, but We're good to go.
	I think that's going to be the shock value that's going to start to maybe get people to go, wow, because they're starting to get the taste of the child trafficking.
	Even President Trump was with Liz Crokin a few months ago.
	We were all there at an event for General Flynn, and she's on his board of America's future, protecting the children and helping stop child trafficking and the sex trade.
	And Trump's thanking Liz Crokin.
	So for those that said Liz Crokin is a conspiracy theorist, you've got President Trump thanking her for all the work and attention she's brought to this entire horrific industry.
	But I think it's time now, Mike.
	The world has to see it.
	Isn't it funny how quickly they came up with the video footage of this transgender murdering shooter who attacked this Christian church in Nashville?
	They found that video footage, boom, the next day.
	They still can't find the Epstein video footage.
	How amazing is that?
	Can't find the client list, can't find the footage, the cameras didn't work.
	Very convenient.
	It's always like that.
	Unfortunately, that's what we're always going to be battling, Mike.
	And of course, the deep fakes is the reason why they're starting to pump the deep fakes out there.
	And they're making it obvious that they're deep fakes, but they're calling attention to deep fakes so that when we put the truth out, they can go, oh, that's a deep fake.
	You know, again, if you've read the Bible, not everybody gets to go.
	So eventually those that chose the shot, Christians that chose the shot, they didn't believe God gave us a perfect immune system and that natural immunity was better.
	Those that are atheists that chose the shot, well, they must believe in natural selection because they've self-selected themselves.
	Good point.
	Right.
	All right.
	Well, look, we've got to have you back.
	Again, we've only scratched the surface of the issues of our day, but I would just encourage people to watch your show Monday through Friday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern on Brightown.tv.
	It's a free show, of course, and you do a fantastic job.
	Anything else you want to leave our audience with today before we wrap this up?
	You know what?
	I always like to leave our audience with hope, because again, I do believe God has a plan, but He's not just going to execute it if we don't participate.
	So we have to do our part.
	Our founding fathers remind us it's our duty to govern ourselves, and so I ask everybody Start with your family.
	You know, Mike, I know you do a great job with your family and your community.
	You're fully prepared to help your community in times of need, and for that, we're very grateful.
	We just all need to operate like that, and it can be at the scale to which you can afford, but at least start thinking like that.
	If you start thinking like that, You will go a long way to everybody going forward in a peaceful way versus total calamity.
	Just make sure your house is always in order.
	That's the most important message.
	Yeah, well said.
	And people will look to us more and more for wisdom, experience, and leadership on all these issues because a lot of people, their friends are dying.
	I mean, one of my family members is just attending two funerals back-to-back.
	Of people basically my age who took the jab and now they're dead.
	And guess what?
	You and I are survivors, Anne, and our audience is made up of survivors.
	We are here because we are correct about this.
	If we were wrong, Anne, we would already be dead by now.
	Right.
	We're not wrong.
	We're correct about this.
	And we set an example for people of how to navigate, how to survive, and then how to build a civilization on Christian principles that is sustainable, that is rooted in meritocracy and reason and respect for creativity and consciousness.
	So that's got to be the ultimate goal.
	But we have to get through this giant crunch that's underway right now.
	And billions will not make it.
	That's my belief.
	I agree with you.
	Sad to say.
	I sadly agree with you on that, Mike.
	But again, I appreciate everything that you're doing, your team, our folks at Brighteon, just a great group.
	We're very blessed.
	Well, thank you so much, Anne.
	God bless you, and we appreciate you and your work, and you're doing amazing things.
	The show, folks, is right now with Anne VanderSteele, 8 p.m.
	Eastern on Brighteon.tv.
	And, of course, feel free to repost this interview on your own channels or other platforms as well.
	I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon.com and Brighteon.tv, and we believe in freedom to speak, freedom to think, health freedom, medical freedom.
	We are true believers in freedom.
	So thank you, Anne, for joining me today.
	My pleasure.
	All right, that's it, folks.
	Brighttown.com and Brighttown.tv.
	Have a great day.
	Take care.
	Welcome to today's Brighteon.com interview.
	I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon.com, the free speech platform.
	And speaking of that, today we have an extraordinary guest.
	Mr.
	Jason Fick joins us.
	He's the founder of what's called the Social Media Freedom Foundation, and he is the expert in Section 230.
	And he and I have met for the last several hours, and he's given me quite an education in understanding how the courts have misinterpreted Section 230 to grant big tech the ability to arbitrarily censor almost anybody for almost anything, even though that's completely illegal or outside the law and unconstitutional.
	So, Jason Fick, welcome.
	It's great to have you here.
	Thank you for having me, Mike.
	Well, thank you for your years of expertise about this.
	You are widely recognized as the expert on Section 230, and you are also a pro-freedom, pro-liberty, pro-free speech type of person.
	Now, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but does that sound...
	Yeah, I don't see how anybody could be against those things.
	Who could be against freedom and liberty and the ability to say what you want to say?
	Well...
	People are.
	Of course, the whole tech cartel is against that.
	But people understand, I think, the basics of Section 230.
	They know that any time that a platform censors them, if they're trying to sue the platform, the courts just say, oh, Section 230, and throw out the case.
	But you have informed me of why they're wrong.
	And I'd like you to share that with the audience.
	We'll go into some details.
	But also here in Texas, we have a relatively new law, HB 20.
	And could you explain also why that is highly relevant to restoring the freedom to speak in America?
	Absolutely, Mike.
	So essentially what has happened is that there have been, you know, 1996 is when this law came into place.
	And its formal name is Title 47, U.S. Code Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
	That's what this was about.
	This is what Congress wanted to have done, was they wanted to protect companies that were going to act in good faith to remove certain content that was considered indecent.
	So what happened is, is that they read the law, but they didn't read it correctly.
	And when I say they, I mean the courts.
	Predominantly, most of these cases end up in the Ninth Circuit Court, ultimately.
	And the Ninth Circuit Court, from almost day one, Has misread the statute and I pointed out the actual language of the statute and how they articulate this in what are called legal briefings and orders and judgments.
	And it's wrong.
	They're not using the right words.
	And that's what we see a lot nowadays is this conflation between private rights and a business's ability to function and what this protection allows.
	Well, over time, that has gotten to be pervasive.
	The protections have become almost unlimited.
	They simply say that you can't treat them as a publisher in the general sense, and then that's it.
	Well, that's not what it says.
	It says that they cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker who is someone else, and that they are prevented from being treated as someone else for their conduct and their content.
	But they shouldn't be protected for their own conduct, ever.
	Okay, but you're already getting into the weeds a little bit for people who are new to this.
	I mean, you're the expert, and it took me a long time to get up to speed on this as well.
	So let me back up just a little bit.
	Sure.
	The Ninth Circuit covers California and almost all the Western United States.
	Predominantly, yes.
	And so the Ninth Circuit tends to protect the interests of big tech.
	It would seem so.
	Yeah.
	And so they interpret this law in a way that is favorable to the tech platforms.
	Correct.
	When the law was originally written, it was designed, as you said, to allow these information platforms, I'll call them, to censor nudity, violence, harassment, snuff films, porn, whatever, especially to protect children in particular.
	Correct.
	But then, especially since Trump became president, these companies have used this law and said, well, we can censor anybody for viewpoints that we don't like.
	Correct.
	How is the Ninth Circuit justifying that in their own thinking?
	Well, what they're doing is that they're just applying it as blanket immunity and not justifying anything.
	There is no justification of good faith.
	There is no being a good guy in this circumstance.
	They simply say you can't be treated as a publisher and it ends there.
	That's not the way it was supposed to be.
	They are supposed to have a measure of good faith.
	We see it right in the language.
	It says that they must act in good faith.
	What do they mean?
	Good Samaritan is in law.
	Good faith applies to being a good Samaritan.
	Now, originally, obviously, when I sued Facebook, it was over financial issues.
	But that same process of restricting speech without any limitations, right, became a weapon against ideology, against religion, and against political viewpoint.
	It's the same process, and unfortunately, the courts just aren't, you know, holding them accountable for their own conduct that falls way outside of being a good faith act.
	Well, yeah, it's so crazy now that even if you don't bow down to their, I don't know if you call it a religion or cult or what, let's say LGBT. If you don't bow down to the LGBT ideology, then you are considered hateful and you will be censored simply for not using someone's, quote, preferred pronouns.
	That was never intended as the reach of two-thirds, not even close.
	I can't imagine a congressional meeting where in 1996 they even considered changing the pronouns of someone.
	Right.
	Much less considering that to be hate speech, much less that being considered indecent.
	Because that's what this comes down to.
	It's the decency act.
	Right.
	It's about being decent, about being a good Samaritan.
	It doesn't mean that you have to agree.
	It's like if you don't agree with them now, you simply are hateful.
	Right.
	That's just not true.
	But they get to decide, of course, whether or not they agree with you.
	And they change their position all the time.
	Correct.
	Right?
	So they're constantly advancing what they think.
	And then suddenly everybody else has to conform with that or they get deplatformed.
	Well, that leads us to another interesting thing.
	And believe it or not, I'll give you the credit on this one.
	You came up with this analogy that's absolutely perfect to understand this.
	They take away everything that they don't want with the intent for it to be what they think.
	Of what's left behind.
	Of what's left behind.
	And it's very much like a sculpture.
	If you start to chip away a sculpture, you're only removing content but with the intent to develop some type of sculpture.
	Let's say the Statue of David, for example.
	What's left is what they have wanted.
	In other words, they've developed the information that's left behind by not removing anything that they don't like.
	So you use a key word there, which is developing or development.
	And yeah, thank you for bringing up that analogy.
	These platforms like Facebook or even a search engine like Google or Apple, which approves apps, they claim they're not in the content development business.
	But as you mentioned, by shaping what's left behind, as in a sculpture, Chipping away the wood or the marble to leave behind something, they are in fact a developer of the resulting content that is then distributed to everybody.
	Correct.
	But the courts don't yet understand that.
	No.
	Unfortunately, I think one of the problems that we have with courts specifically these days is oftentimes these judges are older.
	They're people that have not been using technology.
	And the other thing that we've sort of come to realize is that lawyers lawyer, right?
	They do law stuff.
	Social media people do social media stuff.
	There was no bridge there.
	And what I sort of came to the realization was, is that as being somebody who is in social media, managed to bridge those gaps to the law side of things so that we now can articulate that to judges that may have...
	I mean, even the Supreme Court admitted that they're not the nine most internet savvy people on the planet.
	Well, they're not.
	They don't use it to the extent we do.
	So they wouldn't know what this means.
	But of course, if you're making content decisions as to what to remove, you are by proxy making decisions of what to allow.
	That's content development.
	Well, and in addition, what Twitter has done, for example, and Facebook does it too, is they add fact-checking content.
	Yep.
	So they basically...
	And the shadow ban, right?
	So they'll limit the distribution of your content, even if it's true, even if it's factual, such as a woman's true story of a vaccine injury.
	That will be censored, limited, and then for those few who do get to see it, there will be a fact check added to it, an annotation added by a publisher, which is Facebook in that case.
	They become a publisher by adding notes onto your post.
	And what's even more important is they became a content provider.
	They became a content provider.
	So they are doing publishing.
	So they are a publisher, right?
	Right.
	In the context of the law, that's a very big difference between being treated as the publisher.
	The original publisher.
	Exactly.
	But what's more important is in developing that information when they...
	And let's just take, for example, Facebook's model.
	They identify misinformation.
	They send it out to a third-party fact-checker who creates and or develops information to add to it.
	Your fact-check labels is then sent back to Facebook and then it is added, as you said, the word added to your label, which means that that is their content.
	And they say, well, no, it came from a third-party fact-checker.
	Who they paid to create the content.
	That they authorized, that they hired to do that.
	Correct.
	Yes.
	So it's just, all they're doing is they're subletting the, or subcontracting the work out, but it's still their content.
	Right.
	Which means that by definition, they are responsible in part for the development and creation in this circumstance of that information provided through the internet.
	Right.
	They're a content provider.
	Well, and isn't the same thing true, but in a different way with Google, by choosing the order in which content appears?
	Even though Google itself, let's say, doesn't write the titles of the pages that they index, but they do absolutely choose the...
	They choose which ones to include, which ones to reject based on their arbitrary beliefs, political opinions, medical opinions.
	Financial gain.
	Financial gain, right?
	And then they present it in an order that's determined by an algorithm that they wrote.
	Correct.
	Their people, their employees on their payroll wrote those algorithms.
	And even if they say AI wrote it, their people wrote the damn AI in the first place, right?
	So they are developing the content in order to present it.
	Yes, they are developing the information that they want.
	They are content providers of it.
	And part and parcel with that is that if they're providing that content, they are responsible for that order.
	And I think that that's kind of the revelation that you had today, is then you realize that all of these platforms Our content providers and courts have said, well, we want to protect them when they're doing their business.
	That's not what Section 230 was about.
	It was not protecting them to choose the order.
	It was not about recommending content.
	It was not about developing information.
	It was not about fact-checking tags.
	It was nothing about that.
	It had one thing in mind.
	Excuse me, there's technically two things in mind.
	The first thing was giving them the ability under civil liability protection to remove indecent content.
	Indecent.
	Correct.
	Again, violence.
	That was step one.
	Right.
	And the second thing was that if they act upon some content, they didn't want to be held accountable for all of the rest of the content that they failed to get to.
	That's the second portion of it where they cannot be treated as who published the information, meaning another information content provider.
	As soon as they become the information content provider, even in part, because it says those words, in part responsible, right?
	They are responsible for all of the content on their site.
	It's amazing.
	So if they had just left it all alone except they could remove lewd, violent, harassment, porn content, they could have done that, but then not mess with the other stuff, not augmented content, not thrown fact checking, not deplatformed channels they don't like in order to shape the content that's remaining, then you wouldn't have a problem with them.
	Exactly.
	And if you recall, in our conversation you brought up, well, you need to consider how Brideon runs its sites, right?
	And my point to you was, is that if you're doing the right thing currently, which is you are removing indecent content and content that happens to exist on your site that you're unaware of, you're protected.
	This won't hurt the little guys that are following the rules.
	This change would only hurt the big guys that have used it and manipulated it and turned it into something that it never was intended to be.
	When you say this change, you mean if this is overturned in the courts?
	If the courts apply it correctly.
	And of course, what I haven't mentioned yet is that I currently have a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court right now that is asking very fundamental questions.
	And we're essentially asking the Supreme Court, do we do what the text says or do we stick with status quo?
	Yeah.
	Well, it's not the court's job to interpret what the legislature did if the legislature specifically articulated it.
	It's there in the words.
	We're asking them just do what the text says.
	is Well, you may or may not like this comparison, but I think our audience will appreciate it.
	I consider the current interpretation of Section 230 to be kind of like a digital Roe versus Wade.
	That's my analogy.
	So it took decades to overturn Roe versus Wade.
	Roe versus Wade...
	It allowed legal protection for the killing of babies in the same way that Section 230 allows legal protection for the killing of baby ideas.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	I mean, again, maybe it's a loose metaphor, but there is so much ideological momentum, especially on the authoritarian left.
	So the left has become the anti-free speech political party in America.
	And I know that there are many more purist progressives who agree with us on freedom of speech.
	For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	would be one of them, and maybe many, many others as well.
	And we're with them on the same page on this.
	But isn't overturning this going to be as difficult as overturning maybe Roe v.
	Wade?
	It will be, because the concern is the economic impact to the Internet.
	And unfortunately, one of the things that we have to deal with right at the moment is that, and I'm going to say this relatively bluntly, they made their bed.
	The courts need to deal with it, right?
	They created this monster.
	These companies would not nearly be this big if it had not been for the fact that they can wipe out their competition.
	That's true.
	And they became these gigantic companies because nobody can compete with them.
	In doing so, now the problem is what?
	About seven companies constitute 95% of the entire internet.
	Well, of course, if we change this, it means that they're responsible for what they've done, and it protects the interests of the public.
	So realistically, what's in front of the Supreme Court, and it took me a little while to wrap my head around this, but somebody said it to me the other day.
	It was actually Susan Prager said it to me the other day.
	She said, you do realize that your case in the Supreme Court is probably the most important case in modern history.
	Wow.
	Because it will decide whether or not there is still free speech, whether the Supreme Court wants to protect the interests of the public over the corporate interests, financial.
	I mean, there's so many implications in this case that really what needs to be done is we need to protect the interests of the public because we're going to lose free speech on the internet.
	And when, just as America is an example, they say, what, 73.7% of communications occur online.
	If they control that flow of information, We're in dangerous times.
	Very dangerous times.
	We are indeed.
	So I so much appreciate the effort that you're putting forth to help protect the freedoms we have left or to restore the freedoms that we have lost.
	I want to go to your website, the Social Media Freedom Foundation.
	What is it?
	Socialmediafreedom.org.
	And Free Speech on Social Media.
	You founded this organization, correct?
	We did.
	We are a 501c3 charity organization.
	People can donate to us.
	And our entire goal is to restore our freedoms online.
	I can't tell you how much I... I think you know from having spent some time with me...
	Hey, there's our interview right now.
	Yeah.
	Our radio interview.
	Yeah.
	We've spent...
	I know personally I've spent 10,000 plus hours on this because the reality is that if we lose our freedoms, they're gone.
	They're gone forever.
	And we are the last pillar of hope for the rest of the world right at the moment.
	We have to maintain this.
	This is important stuff.
	So that's what our foundation is all about is the real world work.
	And I can say across the board, every single one of the members that has helped with this, not one has taken a dime.
	All the funds that we have received have gone to the work itself.
	That's it.
	Which is legal work.
	That is all legal work trying to protect our interests.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	And everyone's interests.
	And then you have this event or you're speaking at this event.
	What's the correct website to get to this?
	It would be IES23.com.
	That's the easiest way to get to it.
	Yes, for Internet Equality Summit 2023.
	It is our first public event.
	Great.
	It is a nonpartisan event as a charity fundraiser for the Social Media Freedom Foundation.
	May 11th and 12th.
	May 11th and 12th in Orange County, California.
	Wow, Orange County.
	So we're going right to their front door and saying, hey, can we have a conversation about this?
	Yeah, and I noticed you're using the term equality, which is typically a term that the progressive left uses, even though they no longer believe in equal speech.
	Well, nowadays, it's equity.
	Yeah, it's equity.
	It's not.
	And we say, wait, no, we just want an equal footing.
	It doesn't mean that every business will be the same, that everybody will survive the same.
	Exactly.
	Not everybody's point of view is the same.
	It better not be, yeah.
	To express it.
	Exactly.
	That's what the Internet Equality Summit is about, is where do those lines exist?
	And actually, one of our biggest features, and this is an amazing thing, again, even these speakers have come in and donated their time.
	So these are for the right reasons.
	We're not out here trying to get rich or trying to, what do they call it nowadays, clout chase.
	We have Dennis Prager has graciously given us his time.
	He is going to be doing a live debate on May 11th.
	With Grant Stern, who is the executive editor of Occupy Democrats.
	We have a far left speaking to a far right to have a discussion of where does free speech exist?
	Where does that line begin and end on the internet?
	Well, I'm so glad you have someone you described on the far left of the spectrum of being part of this because...
	For us to have a functioning constitutional republic, we have to be able to debate.
	Correct.
	We don't have to necessarily agree with people.
	Correct.
	But we have to be able to debate, as you said.
	But it seems to me, this is my opinion, that the political left in America today, they can only maintain a dominant cultural and political position due to extreme censorship and deplodforming.
	They can't win on ideas because, well, their ideas are horrible.
	Facts are facts.
	Facts are a difficult thing to fight.
	Yeah, like for example, transgenderism again.
	You know, a biological man cannot have a baby.
	Right.
	It's never happened before, will never happen ever.
	Yeah, no matter how much you wish it, it's just not going to happen.
	And if it has, it's been some insanely rare situation where, you know, genetically everything was messed up anyway.
	Yeah, good point.
	But also, so many other issues, like, for example, economics, monetary theory.
	Progressives tend to believe that you can print unlimited amounts of money without causing inflation, which is economic insanity.
	It's like economic transgenderism.
	It's almost economic warfare, the government against the people, because it's diluting all of our dollars as the government just spends it everywhere.
	True.
	So they don't want, let's say, Austrian economics to have a voice or the Ron Pauls of the world to have a voice because Ron Paul makes so much sense that he would change people's minds if he were allowed to be heard.
	And that's one of the things that I do know that Grant dealt with immediately.
	When he posted about it, they said, oh great, you're going to give that Nazi more of a platform to speak.
	Nazi?
	Where's that coming from?
	Exactly.
	Where does that even come from?
	No, he's just got points.
	And I got to say, I mean, I give credit to both of them for standing up and having that conversation.
	Yes.
	You know, whoever wins, wins.
	Whoever loses, loses.
	At least you get to the right information.
	But like you said, silencing one side of an argument is not winning an argument.
	No.
	That's just cheating.
	Well, and then Section 230...
	It has been used now on an expanding list of issues to silence dissent or views that the left does not want to be heard.
	For example, during COVID, well, especially under Biden, the White House and the CDC instructed tech platforms to censor specific types of content, such as content that was critical of vaccines, critical of masks, critical of lockdowns, and so on.
	I mean, that's all come out in the Twitter files, by the way.
	Yes.
	But now we're hearing calls to censor views about climate change that don't conform to the radical climate cult, I would call it, on the left, which thinks that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
	You're not allowed to have...
	And then Senator Kelly, Mark Kelly of Arizona, said maybe we should stop people from talking about banks being unstable because it could cause bank runs.
	So where does this end?
	Well, that's exactly it, is where does it end?
	We are already on the slippery slope.
	We are already sliding down it.
	Somebody needs to stop it.
	And what you're talking about is this private-public entity partnership.
	It's the state working with these private entities.
	And of course, they all point at each other and they go, well, you did it.
	No, you did it.
	You did it.
	So the courts are going, oh, we don't know who did it.
	And the point there is, and even something that I pointed out, I think, to you today is that Whether it is a directive from state or not, which we know is happening now, it's clear as day that they have been instructing these companies to silence the information they don't want out there.
	Hunter Biden laptop is an obvious one because Mark Zuckerberg admittedly said the FBI asked him to do it.
	Yes.
	But then they say, well, it was asked, so it was a voluntary act.
	But was it?
	In reality, had they not been asked, would they have done it?
	It wasn't entirely voluntary.
	It was influenced.
	But what I pointed out to you today, and I think you saw it, the directive to restrict this kind of content is right in the statute.
	It's right in Section 230.
	So if they are seeking the protections of Section 230, what does it mean?
	It means they had to have acted as an agency of state.
	They chose to voluntarily, but they still did what the state asked.
	Which means it would be unconstitutional to do so because it violates, well, the First Amendment.
	Correct.
	And that is what my second case, which is against the United States, is about in the Washington D.D.C. courts, is we are challenging the constitutionality of this law because it is unconstitutional in lots of aspects, and its abuse is clear to everybody.
	Right.
	Now, I find it fascinating how you got into this, and I think this is okay to share publicly, but correct me if it's not, but Many years ago, over a decade ago, you had quite a thriving social media business.
	I did.
	Very successful.
	You're a very creative entrepreneur.
	You knew how to harness social media in order to be an influencer of, in your case, I think it was kind of comedic content or funny type of content.
	Like, these days, it would be like, has cheeseburger type of stuff, right?
	Yeah.
	That's a popular set.
	Or the people of Walmart.
	You mad, bro?
	Like, memes, stuff like that?
	Yeah, memes and stuff.
	All that kind of stuff is what we used to do.
	You were very successful in that realm, and then Facebook decided to economically strangle your business.
	I mean, to just...
	Cut it off.
	And that thrusts you on this path where we are today.
	But do you want to share a little bit about what happened to you?
	Well, sure.
	So one of the things that I think everybody sort of misses about all of these sites, the fact that they're developing information.
	If you take money to show an ad, wouldn't that ad literally be to develop that information, that you're providing that information to more audience, make it more available, which is the definition of it, right?
	So they are providing this content.
	Well, if they're taking money from advertisers to put content in the newsfeed, Well, they're content providers in the newsfeed which compete with me and you and everybody else for the newsfeed.
	Well, everybody right now is mostly focused on the political and the ideological and the religious issues, but it started out with money.
	It started out financially.
	They needed to move their competition out of the way.
	So they had this engagement model.
	Get everybody on the site.
	Sure, run your business.
	Build your business.
	Oh, by the way, we're going to take it all away from you.
	Because we're going to displace you with content we make money on.
	And that's exactly what they did to me, is they needed to get me out of the way so that they could put more advertisers in there.
	Which means that they control the information coming out from me, the information to the end user, and the bridge between the two.
	And they basically just shoved me out of the market.
	So what they did was fraudulent.
	They made a promise to you and all of us that, hey, you can come on and use the Facebook platform for free.
	You bring an audience with you and you'll be able to reach that audience and maybe even attract new audiences.
	And then once they reached a critical mass of audience, then...
	They took us down, but they kept the audience.
	Correct.
	For themselves.
	So they could run ads and they could earn their money, which, by the way, Mark Zuckerberg just flushed down the toilet with Metaverse, by the way.
	Those billions of dollars he wasted?
	It came from...
	I mean, it should have gone to people like you and I and other content creators.
	Should have settled me out.
	Yeah.
	No, we were the ones who brought them that audience in the first place.
	Exactly.
	We built them.
	Everybody says, oh, they built their site.
	No, they didn't.
	They built a service.
	They built a platform.
	We built the site.
	We built everything.
	We brought everybody in.
	We were the ones that got them all there.
	And when I see we, I mean the whole collective of all of us.
	We are what is...
	We essentially walked the cattle into the stalls.
	That is what we did.
	We are all now here.
	Now we're trapped.
	We can't do anything because the courts won't...
	It doesn't matter how they treat us or anything else like that, they won't impart any liability on them.
	And that's ridiculous.
	That's a complete bait-and-switch program.
	And we've proven that, but it doesn't seem like the courts seem to care.
	Well, not yet, but let's talk about HB 20.
	Because even though there's no chance that there would be, let's say, a new federal law under this administration, and with Democrats controlling the Senate, I mean, they've come to love censorship.
	They've come to depend on it.
	But at the state level, in Texas here, we have HB 20.
	Tell our audience about HB 20 and why that matters for this fight.
	Well, HB 20, being that it's a Texas law, Texas stepped up and they said that they wanted to protect the interests of Texas state residents, right?
	And Texas run businesses and any content that runs through Texas.
	And the intent was that they wanted to protect the ideas and so forth because right now there is this term, otherwise objectionable, that Nobody knows whether it should be considered subjectively or objectively, whether it's anything that they want, or if it has to apply to unlawful, indecent content.
	So what HB 20 did is it kind of had, well, you use a cowboy term, though, headed them off at the pass.
	And it essentially walks in and says, no, you have to articulate, company, how you're imparting your regulations.
	You have to be on the surface about it and you have to be honest about it, which means it can't defraud people.
	For example, Facebook is a platform for all ideas.
	Except ideas they don't like.
	So that's not being upfront and honest.
	They also have to be accurate about it.
	These are things that are stated in here, and it essentially protects from censorship.
	Now, everybody says, well, wait a second.
	These big tech companies have a First Amendment right.
	Right?
	And they get into this argument, and everybody's like, oh, yeah.
	They flipped it upside down.
	Well, here's the thing.
	They do have a First Amendment right.
	And you know what?
	They can run their businesses how they choose to run them.
	But if they run them unlawfully, you should be able to sue, correct?
	That's how normal businesses operate.
	You break laws, you get held accountable.
	Well, the thing about censorship is, and it was challenged, and they said, well, this is unconstitutional because it compels speech, right?
	It makes them the host content.
	Well, it doesn't.
	They've already gone through this, and what they made a determination, it's subtle, but I'll make this distinction.
	It's really key to this whole thing.
	Is this the Fifth Circuit?
	This is the Fifth Circuit, considering this law.
	The Fifth Circuit recognized that if content is considered pre-publishing, meaning it hasn't gone up on their platform yet, that is, in essence, expression of speech.
	Because some of their consideration is going into The publishing itself.
	Pre-publishing.
	But that's not how these sites work, do they?
	They allow us to direct publish first because we're the publisher, right?
	Once it's up there, though, they made the determination that post-publishing, after it's been publishing, if they take the content down, there's no freedom of expression there.
	There's no expression.
	It's only suppression.
	Right.
	Which means it's not First Amendment protected activity.
	Exactly.
	Censorship is not First Amendment protected.
	Right.
	And just to clarify, the left has been arguing, or the tech platforms, that censorship is freedom of speech.
	Exactly.
	Which is Orwellian.
	No, it's not.
	I mean, war is peace.
	Freedom is slavery, right?
	Right.
	Censorship is freedom of speech.
	And finally, the Fifth Circuit said, no, it isn't.
	And that means that HB 20 is in effect right now in Texas, right?
	Yep.
	It's in place.
	It's in place.
	Yep.
	So then, shouldn't we expect a flurry of lawsuits coming out of Texas?
	Right.
	Well, I can say that I've been involved in a couple so far and been consulting on them and so forth and people are gearing up for this because things have changed and now there are protections.
	And of course, I think one of the biggest battles is going to be the form selection issue because these companies, as I said, they're predominantly fixated in California area and Silicon Valley and they all go to the nice circuit.
	Well, of course, one of the cases that I had seen It was really interesting because it was an HB 20 related case.
	It was brought in Texas and the company that they were suing brought 30 lawyers in on it and they're all fighting forum selection.
	Why would that be?
	Because they don't want it to stay in Texas.
	They don't want it to stay in Texas because if it is brought out of Texas and it brought back to California, you essentially just neutered it.
	You've killed it.
	HP-20 will have no effect whatsoever if it goes back to California because California has so far in two and a half decades done absolutely nothing to fix this thing.
	Okay, but it seems to me, I mean, I'm just a layperson on this point, but it seems to me that...
	So HB20, number one, intends for the right to speech to be asserted in the state of Texas, but also all these companies, they engage in censorship and deplatforming in the state of Texas, and many of these companies, such as Facebook, have Offices in Texas.
	Google has representatives in Texas.
	They all have employees in Texas.
	And these employees are involved in the censorship.
	And again, people use their online websites from Texas.
	Correct.
	So the censorship happens on the screens in Texas.
	Right.
	And I think the point of HB 20 is that...
	It articulates that it was written for the interests of Texans, right?
	And Texas businesses and Texas operations.
	Why, if it was to be in this state of Texas, would you consider it out of state?
	Right.
	So why would we move forum selection if they're saying, no, we're making this law for Texans.
	Why would you send it to California to decide what Texans do?
	So all of the judges that are in Texas should heed what I'm saying right now, which is the intent was to protect Texans.
	Keep it in Texas.
	Do not let it go back to California because—and this is a strange thing, and I think we were talking about this earlier— It shouldn't.
	Shouldn't.
	It does.
	It shouldn't matter which district, which circuit you go through.
	The law should be consistent.
	It is not in Section 230.
	It is not in social media companies.
	The Fourth Circuit is right now in my petition for Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit is in conflict with the Ninth Circuit.
	And it's only the Supreme Court that could ever break the tide.
	The two cases don't fit with one another.
	They're in conflict.
	Fifth Circuit is the same situation.
	They're in conflict with the Ninth in certain circumstances.
	Right, right.
	Okay, well, let me mention another potential conflict.
	Here we are at Brighteon.com.
	Brighteon.com is censored by YouTube and Facebook and Twitter, by the way.
	And you can't even share a Brighteon.com URL in a private message on Facebook.
	That's how crazy the censorship is.
	But let's suppose that we sue YouTube.
	And under HB20 in Texas.
	And YouTube, let's say they lose that case.
	Let's just say we win in Texas.
	Couldn't YouTube just then segment their results and say, in Texas, we won't censor Brighteon, but everywhere else we will.
	And then they're going to have a fractured...
	Internet.
	They're going to have the censored states, which will be California, of course, Oregon, Washington.
	And then they'll have the free states, like Texas, maybe Louisiana, Florida, whatever.
	Is that a possibility?
	Could that happen in this case?
	Well, yes.
	They could choose not to do business in Texas.
	Entirely.
	Entirely.
	No, I meant what if they just didn't censor Texas?
	I know, but we could take it to the extreme.
	What if they just decided, well, we're not going to do business with Texas?
	What about the next state that does it?
	I know Florida's trying to push in directions like that.
	What happens?
	What, are they just going to continue to lose business?
	Well, now they're going to have to answer to their shareholders and stock holders.
	Right.
	Well, you...
	You got to stop censoring.
	Well, then the problem is that if you have one state that you're protected, first off, that's going to help Texas because people are going to start moving here to run their businesses and bring businesses here.
	I will set up a VPN service in Texas if that ever happens because everybody will want a Texas IP address.
	Exactly.
	And that's what everybody will start doing business out of Texas.
	And the point there is that what that will do is it will motivate them by bottom line.
	Money.
	It will push them to do the right thing across the board.
	That's what will happen.
	Litigation and liability are the biggest motivators when trying to get somebody to do the right thing, if they can be held accountable.
	But right now, unfortunately, they're not being held accountable for what they do.
	So, in kind of wrapping this up here, I mean, I know time has already flown by, but I can't believe it.
	A lot of information.
	There's a lot.
	I mean, you and I spent hours on this.
	I'm barely beginning to understand this.
	But these companies...
	Do you get a sense that there is momentum now because Texas has passed HB 20?
	Florida, you just mentioned other states are working on this.
	And all the whistleblowers, the leakers have come out.
	Even Elon Musk seems to be helping to get information out about how evil Twitter was before he bought it, by the way.
	Do you feel like the tide is turning here?
	I absolutely do.
	Because the reason I do is because, as you know, and we discussed this in the past couple hours, and it's not something we've necessarily talked about today, is that in our petition, which is in the United States Supreme Court right now, what we have asked the court to do is exactly what they asked in, the justices asked in Gonzalez v.
	Google.
	We already have the alignment just peripherally, but the Department of Justice sees this the way we do.
	There's a big mistake in there that can easily be fixed.
	It's a textual issue.
	And if they simply correct 230C1, which is the first portion of it, it would pretty much correct 95% of the problem overnight.
	The Department of Justice is on the same page.
	Ted Cruz and 17 members of Congress are on the same page.
	Texas' Attorney General Paxson actually spoke with his office yesterday.
	They're all on the same page.
	They recognize the mistake.
	It's fixable.
	It's very easy to fix.
	And it's not the legislation.
	You know, the courts keep looking at, well, fix it legislatively.
	Doesn't need to be.
	The law is correct.
	It's the application of it that's wrong.
	Let's get the application right.
	Protect the interests of the public.
	And honestly, it will be a better place for it.
	Will they still be able to censor to some degree?
	Yes.
	But they're going to have to be a whole lot more honest about it.
	Yeah.
	It's going to change.
	Well, exactly.
	And I think Schmidt in Missouri is working on some of these issues as well.
	He's got an active case.
	Missouri versus Biden.
	He's digging into that.
	I don't know if he was an active Section 230 case.
	I haven't spoken with him directly yet.
	Okay.
	Paxton in Texas.
	I'm very impressed with Ken Paxton and his work.
	And I think it seems to me like Texas just got tired of waiting around for anybody else to do the right thing.
	Texas stepped up.
	And being that we're in Texas, we're like, we're just going to get her done.
	You know, let's just do it.
	And they did.
	Yeah, they did.
	I mean, they have a huge legal team.
	I know that the information has slowly worked its way through and sort of everybody caught up.
	Because I showed you, we have been right about this since 2019.
	We've been saying it, screaming it from the top of the mountains, but now everybody is finally catching up that we've been right, which is why, and I can't discuss any of the cases, but I do consult on other cases professionally to help them understand it.
	Because as you said, as you saw, When you sit down there and you walk through it with me, the language of it, you realize what they're doing is wrong.
	It just doesn't fit.
	And that's what people need the time to understand how this thing really functions.
	Right, right.
	And for me, the big aha was, and you taught me this, you showed me this, that every one of these platforms, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, Pinterest, even PayPal, every single one of them is actually developing Content.
	Yes.
	They are content service providers.
	Is that the term?
	Information content providers.
	Information content providers.
	Right.
	They are developing content.
	Right.
	By applying their censorship.
	Right.
	They're developing their interests.
	They're sculpting the content that is pushed out there.
	Yep.
	It's manipulation of content at post-publishing.
	So creation would be pre-publishing, which means that you bring it into existence.
	But after it's published, if you manipulate it from there out, that's content development.
	It's just like developing film.
	The film's already been done, right?
	You've already taken the picture.
	But developing it is just bringing it out through a process by time.
	That's what they're doing with content.
	That's the point.
	And unfortunately, the courts have really just diminished the value of development, what its meaning is, what they call the germane definition.
	It's very simple.
	If they play with the content and they manipulate it for their own interests, whether that be financial, ideological, religious, political, I don't care what it is.
	If they manipulate that content, they are responsible in part for the development and provision of that content.
	Yeah, let me offer another kind of metaphor that just popped into my head on this or an illustration.
	Let's say I have the world's largest library, public library, with every book that's ever been written, in every language, every religion.
	All content.
	And the doors are wide open.
	Everybody come in, read any book you want.
	Right.
	There we go.
	I'm not a publisher.
	Right.
	Instance.
	Yeah, you're not involved in the content creation or development.
	It's just there.
	It's just there.
	But now suppose I decide that, ah, 50% of these books I don't like.
	And so I pull them off the shelves.
	And then half of the remaining books, I put labels.
	Don't read this one.
	This might be dangerous.
	Or I put a label over here.
	Definitely read this book.
	This is the best.
	Or I take chapters out of books because I don't like the chapters of those books.
	And then I say, this is your new freedom.
	Come into this library.
	That seems to me that's what these platforms are doing.
	And put all the books that don't really make you any money, put them way in the back.
	But like you said, order.
	Bring all, oh wait, this book, they actually pay me a royalty for it.
	So we're going to put that right there on that table, right in the front.
	That's what I'm saying.
	That's how Google operates.
	Oh, look at that.
	I'm looking for a good doctor.
	Gives you one that's out of state, but it's a paid doctor.
	And meanwhile, you can't even find...
	You might even search a doctor's name and you'll get paid ones before you even get the doctor you're looking for.
	Okay, here's even better.
	The library has a room way in the back where they put the books they don't want.
	The lights don't work in that room.
	That's deplatforming.
	Yeah.
	The lights only work out here in the lobby area.
	Right, so you can't read them.
	Yeah.
	The books in the back, oh sure, it's freedom, but the lights don't work.
	And a library is even a better example because oftentimes people try to explain 230 using a bookstore or a newsstand.
	The bookstore or newsstand still orders books, meaning they still...
	Ask for the content.
	It's not a good example.
	A library is better because the content is just there.
	It was put together by somebody else and it is only ordered, meaning the aggregation of the content is maybe sectioned by genre, right?
	Science fiction, fiction, but even the adult book section, right?
	If somebody else created it and you never looked at that book as a librarian, you are not responsible because you can't be treated as the person who spoke that, who wrote it.
	That's a great example because they never looked at it.
	But let me give you another example.
	Imagine you come over and you pick a book out of the shelf that's in science fiction.
	And it's got really graphic content in it.
	And the librarian looks at it and goes, wow, that's really bad.
	And they put it back.
	Now they've considered that content and they've allowed it to remain.
	So they have some negligence in that act.
	Well, they are actually becoming a publisher.
	They weren't the publisher, the original one, the original speaker, but they became an additional person making a content decision.
	Right.
	Development.
	They put it back on the shelf.
	Now, what happens if some kid comes up and pulls that off the shelf and is like, oh my god, this is crazy, right?
	And harms some child.
	Should they not be held accountable for their own conduct?
	Right.
	That's where it gets confusing because what we're saying is, no, if they did not ever look at that book, cool, can't be treated as the person who did.
	But if you did, you are a publisher, and therefore, the second part of this law applies that says you're allowed to restrict specifically bad content, indecent content.
	So if they came up and they put that book out and they go, oh, that actually is kind of harmful, and they took it down, they do have a liability protection to do that.
	That's what it's supposed to do.
	But part of the slippery slope on this, and stop me if I'm going over the time that you have available, part of the slippery slope is they expand the definition of harm.
	Exactly.
	So they say that anybody who isn't 100% on board with every vaccine, even experimental vaccines, even vaccines that are killing some people, they say, oh, you're engaged in harmful content.
	Because promoting vaccines is the good option here.
	Because the government told us so.
	Because the government, right.
	So they can twist anything to be harmful, even the Bible, right?
	They can say, oh, this person quoted scripture.
	Well, that's advocating harm in some way.
	And they do.
	They do that right now.
	They do.
	In the UK, people are being arrested.
	In Canada, the preacher there has been thrown in jail for citing scripture.
	Right.
	Which is to say that if you go back to why are they doing it, it's because they want to promote another idea, right?
	They want to advance the idea that they're good.
	So they're going to remove everything that's bad, right?
	That's the fact that we were saying.
	If it's anti-vaccine, it's bad.
	It's got to come down.
	It's harmful.
	If it's good, but they're developing that idea.
	That brings us to what would be called an irreconcilable statutory conflict.
	And we talked about this.
	This is where this law has a conflict within it that's irreconcilable.
	There's no way to fix this.
	And that is simply the flip side of the coin issue.
	A proxy.
	Okay.
	It means that if you're allowed to consider what is removable, restrictable, by proxy, meaning the flip side of that coin, what are you also able to decide?
	Whether it's allowed.
	Right.
	Well, if they decide what's allowed, that's content development.
	Yes.
	That would make them a content provider.
	Right.
	But the content has to be provided by someone else.
	And it wouldn't be.
	So the problem with that is that if you both allow them to develop information, but also not allow them to develop information, which is it?
	It makes no sense.
	Exactly.
	That's why it's irreconcilable.
	It allows them to both develop and not develop information simultaneously.
	So all that is necessary.
	For this Section 230 regime, I'll say, to be overturned is for the proper courts to simply engage in the logic that is already embedded in the word of the law right now.
	Yes.
	That's it.
	Yes.
	It just requires a change in understanding or a proper parsing of the sentences.
	There's two fundamental things that occur here that need to change.
	What is called the intelligible principle or the general provision of the statute, which is that they have to act as a good Samaritan.
	Courts aren't applying that, but it's the fundamental principle upon which they must make their regulation.
	So the threshold question for any litigation is, did they act in the interest of the public or for the good of others?
	Now, they can make that argument.
	You just said that.
	That they can make almost any argument that they, you know, except for making their own financial gain.
	That one's really hard to make, right?
	That, oh, it was helping you out by making us money.
	But if they surpass the Good Samaritan issue and they say, yeah, we were acting for the good and benefit of others, they have traditionally said that you just can't treat them as a publisher under the first section, C1, which is to say that that in effect says that you're protected from any publishing conduct you do.
	All of it.
	Well, that's actually wrong.
	Right.
	If you read it correctly, and what we have asked the court, the second element, which would change almost everything overnight.
	If 230C1, and Ted Cruz articulated, this isn't even my words, he said, the 230C1 does not protect any conduct at all.
	That means they don't get to check the book.
	They don't get to allow content.
	They can't have any involvement with the content.
	Right.
	Nothing.
	Now, procedural function-wise, they may be able to move the book to a genre section, but they sure can't tell what's in it.
	consider the content, C1 no longer applies, and that would mean that all application of any actions they take, any conduct whatsoever, only applies to C2A, at which case there is an element of good faith.
	And you can argue that then in court, it wasn't done in good faith because you'd have to be a good Samaritan acting in good faith.
	And they would have to lay out their logic for what they consider to be objectionable It'd have to be an objective list.
	Yeah.
	Tell us why.
	Tell the poor why.
	They won't admit to that.
	Exactly.
	They never ever have to justify what they did.
	That's the problem.
	It's all done in secret.
	The courts don't care because they just say you can't be treated as a publisher and they never get into, did they act in good faith?
	Did they act as a good Samaritan?
	That's why you have these vague terms.
	It's hate speech.
	It's spam.
	Because there's no justification.
	They can't point to a single rule that we broke.
	They don't even have an articulated single rule that is anything beyond, it's bad.
	I mean, it's that broad.
	Mm-hmm.
	And it keeps changing.
	Exactly.
	Even among them.
	Nobody knows what is allowed and what isn't allowed, which has a chilling effect on speech.
	Even these same tech platforms, 10 years ago, if someone had posted, I am woman, hear me roar, it would have been thumbs up.
	Awesome.
	Women, feminism, you're awesome.
	Motherhood, breastfeeding, all of it.
	Awesome.
	Today, I am woman, hear me roar.
	Oh, you're a trans hater, I guess.
	You believe in women.
	Yeah, it should have been I am them.
	I am them.
	It's so ridiculous.
	I mean, the things that they're claiming are offensive and objectionable, maybe to somebody, but everything is objectionable to someone.
	Right.
	Everything.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So the point then becomes, let's put good faith to work finally.
	Let's get the statute operating correctly so the courts go, okay, was this done in good faith?
	I mean, that would be a massive change.
	Just to even consider it, it's not being done.
	Yeah.
	Well, look, I hope, Jason, that with your, you mentioned you're consulting on some cases and with your efforts, I know you have a lot of contacts out there.
	I hope, and I really want to support this effort, that we can get this law interpreted correctly and restore freedom of speech across all these platforms.
	Now, you're sitting here in the Brighton studios.
	Brighteon would not exist, except they censored me.
	In fact, the day I decided to build Brighteon, which has been many millions of dollars, as you can imagine, was the day I was deplatformed by YouTube.
	That was the day I made the decision.
	If they hadn't deplatformed me, they would not be at brighteon.com.
	Think about that.
	They could have actually controlled the space if they had just allowed some freedom of speech.
	Instead, They've gone on what I think is a corporate suicide path, and they've pushed people out the doors by coercion.
	I think it's funny because people say to me, like, well, what happens if you ever do get to trial, right?
	Do you think they're going to be able to find 12 jurors that don't, that actually anybody likes big tech anymore?
	Right.
	I mean, it's so pervasive.
	No, people know big tech is suppressing.
	It's the strangest thing when you see like 70 and 80 year old grandmoms going, Oh, I don't like this anymore.
	They censored my information to so and so.
	And you're like, Why?
	Like, why everybody hates you now?
	Because they've just gotten so far off the rails.
	Just let us say what we want to say is all we're asking.
	And you have to commend, you know, I know that you're an individual that has built this network of Brighteon and Natural News and the Health Ranger.
	And you've taken the shots.
	Oh, yeah.
	You've been like me.
	We've gotten hit because we are not willing to stop saying what we want to say.
	Exactly.
	And that's the hard part is you have to make a decision.
	Do you continue to say what you want or do you bow down to what they want?
	Because it's a war of attrition.
	They want to run us all out of money by silencing us.
	Well, yes.
	And one final thought, we're not the only alternative video platform, obviously.
	And I think the most prominent one right now is Rumble.
	And Rumble is going to give YouTube a run for their money.
	Rumble is signing people like crazy.
	And I even know of some big names that have been given multi-million dollar offers by Rumble.
	Not me, but people I know.
	They're going to go to Rumble.
	And Rumble is going to eventually dwarf YouTube or basically relegate YouTube to a sector of sort of ignorant people who don't know what's happening in the world might go to YouTube.
	But anybody who wants to be informed would go to Rumble or other alternative platforms, BitChute, Brighteon, Gab, you know, there's a lot of choices, Odyssey and others.
	So that's kind of the direction it's going, by the way.
	But I would forewarn people, and we've seen this, Companies that are the ones that are like Rumble, for example, if they're allowed to survive, why?
	You have to ask yourself, why is it growing so big?
	Why are they allowing it?
	Because Parler, man, they cropped them right off as soon as they were gaining steam.
	So we have to be careful that we're just not creating another monster by a different name.
	Well, I agree.
	And I mentioned the same thing about all these other platforms.
	How are they getting their apps approved by Apple and Google?
	That's the question.
	Are they selling out?
	Well, I think some of these platforms have had to engage in some kind of agreement of censorship, or maybe censorship is not the right term, but...
	Certain categories.
	Yeah, conformity.
	Now, notably, we have had no conversations with Apple or Google or anybody.
	They won't allow our apps at all, right?
	But we're not even interested in going to them and saying something like, hey, how can we be in your good graces?
	Because I don't believe in that.
	I don't want to conform to them.
	I want this to be pure free speech.
	Or at least explain, why can't we be here?
	Yeah, right.
	You're holding yourself out to be a public service to people, anybody that wants to come on and use it.
	But not us.
	Why is that exactly?
	Explain to me, because I always, what did I do?
	Because everybody asked me what I did, what bad content did I have?
	I didn't.
	It was just funny stuff.
	And that's the thing is that, and you know your business far better than I do, I'm sure it would be difficult to point their finger and go, this is bad.
	It's just your opinions.
	Well, yeah, but I know what I did to piss off the system.
	I warned people about big pharma before COVID, a decade before COVID. I told people, you don't need to take pharmaceuticals to be healthy.
	That cut into a multi-trillion dollar profit system.
	Oh, it did.
	And that's why they took me out even before they censored Alex Jones, by the way.
	But they censored you before they even censored me.
	Yeah, they censored me straight as competition.
	I was straight up...
	They had to move guys like me that had...
	I mean, I listen to a lot of people.
	They're like, oh yeah, I had 100,000 hits.
	I used to have in the billions of hits.
	Billions per month.
	Because it was just...
	We didn't have the restrictions back then.
	It was full throttle.
	And I mean, we had enough reach that we could change national trends at the time.
	Oh, no question.
	It was crazy.
	Look, if they weren't censoring...
	People like myself or Alex Jones, I just mentioned, or others in the alt media space, we would be the media.
	Correct.
	We'd be far bigger.
	We'd be far bigger.
	I mean, frankly, InfoWars is already bigger than CNN. Well, that's not hard to do.
	No, it's not hard to do these days.
	Actually, kind of funny thing, just as a side note, because I think everybody will laugh about this.
	At one point, my one page was actually ranked fifth in the nation.
	It was one ahead of CNN. My little magazine page on Facebook was more traffic than CNN. See?
	And so they had to cut us down in order to control speech and things and elections and issues.
	Because, well, it's all obvious at this point.
	But I've gone way over time.
	I apologize.
	Oh, but it's a good, what we're talking about is great stuff.
	It is.
	This is not the argument that you hear anywhere else.
	You always hear these crazy stories of people that have not been doing this.
	I've been working in this segment for seven years.
	You know, so we have a different perspective on it.
	We know how to fix it.
	Yeah.
	And I think that that's the big message here to everybody is we know how to fix the internet.
	It comes down to whether the Supreme Court decides to do it or not.
	Well, good point.
	No wonder they so viciously fought against the nomination or the Trump nominees to be accepted to the court.
	But in any case, and it's also interesting that this interview about censorship will be censored on YouTube.
	Most likely.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	On Facebook.
	But let me give out your website again here, socialmediafreedom.org.
	Is where people can go and follow your work.
	And I'd love to have you back on again as well, especially if there's progress or updates on any of these lawsuits as they're made public.
	I would imagine there's going to be a lot of action here in Texas.
	It sounds really interesting.
	So keep me posted on that, would you?
	Absolutely.
	Things are going to be changing.
	I will definitely keep you up to speed on this one.
	Okay, and we've got to thank the Texas legislature for making that happen.
	All of them, including Ted Cruz's office, Attorney General Pax's office.
	They're doing the right job.
	They are.
	Texas really has stepped up here.
	I'm impressed.
	I hope to be working with them a bit more.
	It's been a little bit lax about the communication back and forth, but we're in one of the biggest fights in the world.
	Like I said, this case is insanely important.
	We need their help, if nothing else, to pressure the Supreme Court.
	Yes, exactly.
	And thank God that I'm a Texan and that we are in Texas and the Brighteon is in Texas because it's the perfect place to speak freely.
	It is.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	God bless Texas.
	God bless America as well.
	Thank you for watching, folks, and thank you, Jason, for coming on.
	Thank you for having me.
	Absolutely.
	It's a pleasure.
	Jason Fick's website, again, is socialmediafreedom.org.
	So check that out.
	And then your upcoming event is May 11th and 12th.
	Internet Equality Summit.
	Internet Equality Summit.
	And that's going to be in what part of California again?
	Orange County.
	Orange County.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And people can go there in person, attend it, get tickets?
	Yeah.
	This is a live event.
	We'll have a lot of, I believe Dr.
	Malone is signing up with us as well.
	We're involved with the Unity Project.
	I mean, we've got some big players in this thing that are interested, obviously, in internet equality.
	Okay.
	So we're going to have that discussion.
	All right.
	I should talk with you after this to see if maybe Brighteon could livestream that event with you or something like that.
	Maybe be represented there.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, let's talk about it.
	I think it'd be great.
	In any case, look, folks, thank you for your support.
	We couldn't do it without you.
	I'm Mike Adams, of course, the founder of brighteon.com, and Jason Fick here in studio today.
	This man has an amazing encyclopedia of knowledge about this, and I think that his ideas are going to change the world.
	So thank you for watching today.
	Feel free to repost this interview.
	You have my permission to post it on other platforms and other channels, especially on YouTube.
	Let's see what they think about it.
	And if you want to support us, just keep visiting brighteon.com or brighteon.tv.
	God bless you all.
	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.

▲