All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2024 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
36:09
US Senate candidate Jonathan Emord fights to overturn RIGGED verdict against Trump
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, everybody, to this very important interview today.
I'm Mike Adams with BrightTown.com, recording from my home studio today because this is really an emergency interview, urgent situation.
We have Jonathan Emord, truly a legendary attorney, and now, of course, the U.S. Senate candidate for Virginia.
His website is emord4va.com.
I support him so much that I donated the maximum legally allowable amount to his campaign.
And I encourage everybody to do that if you can.
He joins us today because he's filed an amicus brief to the court to try to overturn the obviously sham trial rig convention of President Trump.
So welcome to the show, Mr.
Emord.
It's an honor to have you on, sir.
Great to be with you.
All right.
Please tell us about this amicus brief that you filed.
And what do you think is the rationale and the legal basis for overturning this conviction of Trump?
All right, so we haven't yet filed it.
It will be filed after the July 11th sentencing of President Trump, and the court will then enter a scheduling order.
But to talk about the case, I mean, my goodness, there's so much wrong with this case.
In the first instance, this is unprecedented.
So you have no basis to create law by the action of a district attorney.
So here you have a district attorney who literally created new law and a court that went along with it rather than dismiss it.
Of course, it's the legislature's role to create law.
And the prosecutor is supposed to enforce the law.
Wait a second.
How are you saying he created law by considering the accounting error to be a campaign finance violation?
Yeah, so what he did was he took a standard business records case that was past the statute of limitations.
So you have a business records case that really shouldn't even fit within that framework, but It was barred because they brought it too late.
So in order to overcome that bar, he invents new law.
And what he does is he says that this misdemeanor business records case is going to be a felony.
And it's going to be a felony because he's going to allege that There's not only an intent to falsify a business record, which is utterly untrue, but that there's also an intent to interfere with the election since 2016.
And the whole thing is preposterous because there isn't even a basis in fact to support it, but also it's preposterous because this is not law in New York.
There's no foundation to proceed.
And nonetheless, the court entertained it and didn't dismiss it and brought it all the way to a jury conclusion, even in a venue where there was no question but that he would be denied a fair trial.
Yes, but even, now Trump's legal team has said he's going to appeal, of course, but even the appeals process still subjects him to these biases that you just described, but just at a higher level of potential bias, doesn't it?
That's potentially true, I think.
So we have the Appellate Division 1st District that he's appealing to.
That, again, may suffer from the same political bias that we saw in the court, but there's a chance that it won't.
And there's an opportunity in the first instance to seek a stay.
So they will undoubtedly seek a stay of the judge's order, which would be after sentencing.
They would immediately seek a stay.
And the judge will deny any effort to do that.
But then the appellate division will have an opportunity to do it.
And it really does meet the standard of a stay.
That is to say, because of the equities here, first of all, there's irreparable injury.
No question about it.
It's interfering with his ability to campaign.
And it has also resulted in a gag order that was extensive in the lower court as well as, you know, gross violations of law.
But there have been enormous reputational damage, too.
So you have irreparable injury.
You have the equities favor him because, look, there's no particular need to throw Donald Trump in jail.
The equities favor him.
He's running a national campaign, so you should allow that.
And then, in addition, he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, because this is a case that has never been presented before.
It's based on a novel creation of law, which is in and of itself in excess of what the prosecutor can bring.
It had to be a legislative act in the first instance, and it couldn't even have been that, because it would have been an ex post facto law.
Jonathan, I have a feeling that...
Thank you for that detailed explanation.
But I have a feeling that Bragg and the other prosecutors involved in this, including, as I understand it, some borrowed from the DOJ, they know that this will not survive appeal.
They don't care because it can cause the damage for the time window that they are targeting, which is the campaign season.
But my question to you, sir, is...
What are your thoughts on the willingness of these overzealous prosecutors to destroy public faith in the rule of law in the state of New York and the economic implications across the entire real estate industry, the commercial industry of New York as a state, not to mention New York City, of course.
I mean, aren't those implications dramatic and dangerous?
They're enormous.
They threaten not only other litigants in New York and business records type cases.
They also affect really the entire willingness of attorneys and companies to engage in transactions where they have to list legal fees.
I mean, what the court is basically creating as a standard is wiping out the attorney-client privilege.
I mean, Donald Trump put legal fees, as most lawyers would, because you don't want to delineate what those are for.
Because if you do that, you waive the attorney-client privilege.
And that's really at issue here, but never was brought up.
The other important point here is that intent is a critical element in multiple aspects of this bizarre nesting set of allegations about intent.
And this judge never gave an instruction to the jury about intent.
It's so glaring and appallingly erroneous to not do so.
So they never debated the relative level of intent necessary to support this.
Well, doesn't this also mean that other business leaders in New York, let's say, even if they're not conservatives, Wouldn't they be reluctant to subject themselves to these courts at this point, believing that there's no such thing as due process now?
That's right.
It's not only destructive to the rule of law in New York, as you're pointing out, but it really is destructive and indicative of a movement nationally to weaponize justice and have courts complicit in that.
A lot of these far-left jurists who get on the court, they don't really care what the rule of law is.
They just use law as a vehicle to create the ends that they prefer, and justice in that instance is certainly not blind.
There's no equal protection of the laws.
And you really get up before the bar of the court and either you're a political enemy or you're a political friend.
And that determines the outcome.
In fact, with Bragg, remember, he's a Soros-backed prosecutor who has largely been in favor of defunding the police and no cash bail and eliminating prosecution of criminals.
And yet when it comes to a political enemy, he pulls out all the stops and vents a new statutory provision, which he doesn't have the authority to do, and goes after him with a vengeance with the complicity of a far left judge who has conflicts of interest.
Indeed.
It's all gross.
And one of the points of the judicial system is to protect each and every one of us from the mob, the mob mentality, to make sure that even if a group of jurors hate you and despise you, which, of course, they were programmed by the media to hate Orange Man, Right?
Orange man bad.
But even in that case, that you still have the right to due process, to rules of evidence, rules of discovery, to present your own witnesses in your defense.
It seems like every one of these was distorted or denied by this judge.
In essence, the judge handed or provoked or incited the mob to punish Trump instead of protecting Trump from the mob.
Well, the ultimate external evidence that there is no That there's bias in a jury or in a proceeding is that people themselves who are involved with it would necessarily fear for their lives or for their future if they deviated from the expectations of one side or the other.
And in this instance, can you imagine if you're on that Manhattan jury and you did not side with them in convicting Trump and you advocated instead that he be acquitted?
If you did that, you would become immediately vilified, would probably have a difficult time keeping a job and would certainly potentially even have your life threatened.
By leftists, they would probably firebomb your house.
Certainly.
So that's an improper venue, of course, because those are the realities of the circumstances that people live in in that area.
But...
This is the weaponization of justice.
This is indicative of the great danger posed by Soros-backed prosecutors across the United States who are politicized, who do the very same thing that Alvin Bragg did, and they're in jurisdictions all over the country doing this.
Yes.
This is not an isolated case, but it is a famous case, and what it does is it draws public attention to the reality that very much so the rule of law is oftentimes dead in these jurisdictions where Soros-backed prosecutors operate.
Remember, that covers something like 80% of the population of the United States is now under the jurisdiction of one of these Soros-backed prosecutors.
That's a very important point.
I want to bring your attention and get your comments on something else that happened today which is very concerning about the rise of tyranny.
I'm sure you're familiar with Judge Andrew Napolitano, a great pro-liberty voice in America.
He and Scott Ritter, as I currently understand it, were on a plane.
They had boarded a plane to fly to St. Petersburg, Russia, to attend a conference.
Now, details are still kind of early, so pardon me if any of this needs to be corrected.
But the U.S. State Department ordered law enforcement onto the plane to seize the passports of both of these individuals, as I currently understand it, and then escorted them both out of the airport and refused to answer questions.
We know this is confirmed with Scott Ritter.
Judge Napolitano was removed from the flight, not yet 100 percent confirmed that they took his passport, but seems likely that they did.
Whether they did or not with Napolitano, they took the passport from Scott Ritter.
What are your comments on what this means where journalists or influencers, Napolitano, quite a celebrity voice, can be simply detained and prevented from leaving the country based on no charges, no accusations, nothing.
Just a secret confiscation of your passport.
You're now a prisoner in America.
What are your thoughts, Mr.
Emord?
Well, we have seen these types of things happen over and over again with censorship by this administration writ large all throughout the COVID period and against individuals, including you and me and and many others in journalism who have gone on the air and dared to communicate things that were critical including you and me and and many others in journalism who have gone on the air and dared to communicate things that were critical of Hunter Biden or
So, you know, Judge Napolitano and Ritter are our key figures in conservative journalism, and they are obviously ones who you would expect to be targeted.
I don't know the specific facts of this case, so I can't speak to what the underlying reason is for the FBI. I'm sure this will come out as the story unfolds, but I must say that it smacks of authoritarianism and fascism, to tell you the truth, and it really is outrageous that they would approach whatever issue it is this way,
and I strongly suspect that They probably have been under surveillance, and they probably understand the reason why they're going to Russia, and they probably believe that that would adversely affect the administration in some way.
I can't really say, and I'm speculating, but look, we've got a long track record of this administration punishing conservatives.
They even went after parents in Loudoun County for protesting against school boards.
That's right.
So they're unhinged.
They don't have any respect for the Constitution.
We know that by multiple actions they've taken.
So I think that this is probably in line with that, and I'd like to hear more, but it certainly sounds like it at the outset.
Well, we don't yet know all the details of this.
As you said, we'll learn over the coming days, but I do want to bring to your attention, you may or may not be aware of this, but...
My organizations filed suit against the U.S. State Department on Memorial Day.
We filed an extensive complaint against Homeland Security, Google, Facebook, even Twitter, but also NewsGuard and several overseas NGOs, the ISD, etc., who are involved in what we call censorship laundering.
And we have all the smoking gun evidence.
We believe if we can present this in a fair court, that we will prevail.
But then the question is, where is the fair court in America when you're suing the State Department?
And that's my question to you is, where can Americans expect to discover real justice anymore, given what we're talking about, what's just happened last week?
Well, as you know, I mean, one of the major reasons why I'm running for the United States Senate is that I realized that even when I beat the FDA over and over again and when I beat other federal agencies, oftentimes those agencies just ignore the court's orders and do what they want to do or they'll re-regulate around those problems and essentially impose the same violations of the Constitution all over again.
And that was the history of my FDA litigation, and that has been the history of litigation against other agencies and departments.
And so what you really have to do is to take away the power, to take away the administrative state, to take away the discretion that exists in the hands of these unelected bureaucrats who are capable of completely destroying people's lives and never having to account for it.
So then speak to that as senator for Virginia.
What would you do in the Senate that would help defang these overreaching agencies?
So I wrote a bill for Ron Paul many years ago called the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act.
And what that would do is make every proposed regulation of an agency have no legal force or effect unless it was passed into law by Congress.
So it would make the agencies just merely advisory to Congress.
And all existing regulations would be sunsetted within three years unless passed into law by Congress.
And so this bill, which Norm Singleton and I put together for Ron Paul many, many years ago, kind of a very efficient way of restoring the separation of powers and the Constitution's requirement under Article 1, Section 1, that only Congress make the law and that our elected representatives have that unique role and it cannot be delegated.
The non-delegation doctrine, which is largely dead in the courts but was critical to the Founding Fathers, would prevent Congress from delegating away to independent agencies like this or departments, legislative, executive, and judicial power.
But that's what they've done for years and years.
And, of course, that was what James Madison described in the Federalist Papers as the very definition of tyranny.
That's right.
We live in a tyrannical age, as the Founding Fathers would have regarded our current situation, which three-quarters of all federal laws made not by those we elect, but by the unelected heads of these agencies as tyranny.
What was the case where the overreach of the EPA was struck down by the Supreme Court, and how come that hasn't been followed in terms of other agencies, ATF, FDA, and so on?
Yeah, so you're absolutely right.
I mean, there have been actually a series of decisions by the Supreme Court, the Substantial Questions Doctrine case.
That's it.
Yes, that's what I'm thinking.
With the Sackler's case, where the EPA, excuse me, where they had declared their property to be a regulatory wetland and could therefore reach it, even though it was in a community already developed, and they were trying to build their Their dream home on a lot that was in between lots already developed, and the EPA came in and said, oh no, this is a regulatory wetland.
I mean, so that was held unconstitutional too, and now we have this case pending before the Supreme Court and the two fisheries cases where the Supreme Court could invalidate this doctrine of deference called Chevron.
So there are many instances now where the court has been working against the administrative state for the first time in really since the 1980s when the Chevron Doctrine came out, actually long before that too, when deference really was recognized by the courts anyway.
This just basically created a standard for deference in Chevron.
But yeah, it's...
We have seen a massive growth in government that has cost us our rights and our freedoms in such an enormous degree.
And the way agencies work, you don't even know they exist, and then all of a sudden you bump into one.
And then when you do...
You realize all too quickly that you're not innocent until proven guilty, that you don't have a right to a jury trial, even though they're taking your liberty and property away, that you don't have a right to confront your accuser, so you don't really know who's bringing these matters against you.
You don't have a right of discovery against the government, yet the government has general warrants that they use against you, even though that's unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and on and on and on.
And you find out you're in a kangaroo court.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, Jonathan, you'll appreciate this.
I'm not going to name the agency, but you can guess.
But recently, an agency ordered us to incinerate a palette of toothpaste, that natural fluoride-free toothpaste, properly labeled, followed all the laws.
We were ordered to incinerate it and to pay for the incineration.
I mean, how insane is this, right?
The drug companies can sell basically reptilian venom peptides as a weight loss injection, but you can't sell toothpaste.
We involved some of our regulatory attorneys in the process and some other parties, I won't go into detail, spent about $20,000 and then the FDA said, oh, we've reconsidered your case and it's all good now.
Go ahead, you can have your toothpaste.
And I'm thinking, this is tyranny.
This is tyranny.
We have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in order to not destroy a really amazing product with fennel in it, by the way, that licorice and fennel to help people have better oral health.
This is tyranny.
This is what I'm talking about.
Yeah, it is tyranny.
And what you're talking about, look, there's no injury, right?
In almost all of these circumstances, there's no person who's been injured by the product.
No.
We weren't even allowed to receive it.
Right.
So you don't have any injury.
You don't have anybody complaining.
You've got the government or a competitor causing you to suffer this.
And the result is that of no utility to anyone, actually, what they've done is deprive people of the opportunity to have a freedom of choice and exercise that in the market.
Right.
It's the only thing that happened out of this.
In our case, the FDA, in our case, the unnamed agency fabricated a made-up thing.
That even our attorneys were like, this is crazy.
We've never seen this before.
This is insane.
What are they doing?
They're violating the law.
And they eventually just reversed their decision.
But then I hear this from farmers about the EPA. I hear this, I know FFL gun dealers who shut down because of the ATF. It's agency after agency after agency terrorizing the American people and American businesses.
This, sir, is why you need to be in the Senate.
We're being terrorized.
Absolutely.
And it is so overwhelming.
You know, when you look at the individual cases like I have, I've represented, of course, hundreds and hundreds of people against the government over the years.
And in every one of these cases, virtually, almost every single one, There was no evidence whatsoever of a complaining party, of anyone actually being injured by anything.
They'll take a sentence that can be construed multiple ways, and they'll construe it in a way that suggests that a product is being sold as a drug.
The product is not a drug.
The product is a food, it's a dietary supplement, but it's not a drug.
The product has all this evidence that supports its efficacy and how it enhances immune function or whatever.
But the government would say, for example, well, you say that this product enhances the immune function, but we think that you're actually selling it as a cancer cure.
Now, you didn't say it cured cancer, but in context, we think what you're implying is that it is.
And for that implication, which no one, they don't have any evidence that anyone ever believed that, They will shut and destroy a company.
I represent a company called ECM Biofilms.
They created a product, absolutely extraordinary.
They would extrude it into a conventional plastic while it's being formed in a heat melding process.
And just like a colorant is in that process.
And this ingredient that they put in there was actually food for biota.
So that the elements in the product could actually cause biota when the thing was discarded into the earth or into a landfill.
To eat through conventional plastic, to get to the food source, We're good to go.
And those independent tests all validated that this thing actually caused conventional plastics to biodegrade.
Wow.
I mean, you'd think the environmentalists would love this.
You would think so, but you know what the government did.
So the government, the FTC, created an unscientific and ridiculous definition for the term biodegradable that benefited this company's competitors, which sought that definition.
And it was absurd.
They said this is what their standard was.
You cannot use the term biodegradable on these plastics unless they would completely break down into elements in nature within one year of customary disposal.
Now, what that means is that, first of all, it's scientifically impossible for something to break down into an element.
It breaks down into compounds.
Absolutely.
So the definition is absurd, which would mean that no one could use the term biodegradable because nothing breaks down and down.
Because carbon likes to cling to things.
It's basic science.
Basic science and totally ridiculous.
And then the second aspect of it, by that definition, you could not say that a banana peel was biodegradable.
That's right.
It may take more than a year to completely break down.
And likewise, a tree trunk, you couldn't say is biodegradable.
That's right.
All kinds of things.
A grapefruit wouldn't be biodegradable necessarily, all dependent upon the ambient environmental circumstances.
Well, to make a long story short, we actually won that case in the FTC's own administrative law courts, which is highly unusual.
We won, okay?
And then the FTC, which is, here's the other problem, in an administrative agency, the party that brings the charge against you is also the judge.
So the prosecutor is also the judge.
Right, right.
It's insane.
Totally insane.
So you end up with the prosecutor being the judge.
So, of course, the commission, the Federal Trade Commission, reversed the decision of the ALJ, which was merely a recommendation in this crazy universe.
It's not even considered a judgment.
It's a recommendation, but they reversed it.
And they found our guys to have fraudulently communicated that their product was biodegradable.
And this is what they said.
They said, oh, we can discard all of the evidence in the case because we are the experts in language.
And as long as we find that a significant minority of consumers would be misled by the term biodegradable used here, that's enough for us to declare that it cannot be used at all.
Unbelievable.
Okay, so then we go to court and eventually, although the court decision nominally said that it was in favor of the government, it actually said that the claim qualification that we used, that we recommended, Was sufficient so that we could continue to use the term biodegradable.
So that actually, while a three-judge panel that was comprised of two Obama judges and one Clinton judge had decided in favor of the government nominally, the actual decision enabled our company to win because we wanted to use the very disclaimer.
We had proposed it.
You know, from the start of the case.
But look at what it costs, right?
It costs millions of dollars to get to that decision.
Absolutely.
All these years and all of this persecution by the FTC, most parties would have been destroyed.
This company lost half their people, almost all their people, by the time the decision came down, but they survived.
And now they're still prospering, they're coming back and all that, because we won.
But how many parties along the way get bankrupted by the government and lose?
Absolutely.
Okay, so just to summarize what you just said there, we're in a world being overrun by microplastics.
Here's a company that says, we have a solution, a packaging solution that eats plastic.
And the FTC says, oh no, That's illegal.
Even though it does eat plastic, you can't say it does.
Sorry.
I mean, that's how crazy this is.
I don't want to go into more detail because we're going to wrap this up.
I want to give you the opportunity here.
I mean, I thank you for your time tonight.
This is late in the evening.
I'm sorry to keep you up.
You've had a long day already.
But tell us how people can support your campaign for United States Senator for the state of Virginia.
Well, they can certainly donate, and that's going to be critically important.
We're coming up on an election June the 18th, so if people are able to donate, that's great, and they can do that through emord4va.com.
And if they're in Virginia, you know, get out and vote for us on June the 18th.
Make sure that you stand up for health freedom for, you know, against the vaccination mandates and the mandates for masking.
I mean, you're talking about a person like you and I are of one mind that the government ought to not be in the business of dictating healthcare.
We need to have our own independent professional judgment operating without government coercion, without a World Health Organization breathing down your back through the CDC or through the federal government.
And had we done that during the COVID epidemic, we would have had a lot of people's lives saved.
This whole thing with the open border situation, an utter disaster because of an administration that is allowing, incentivizing even, foreign agents, drug traffickers, sex traffickers, MS-13, 18th Street Gangs.
We need to fix that, and we need to do it intelligently.
And I have a very clear plan for doing that that's on my website, too.
But the climate change agenda, totally insane.
Trillion dollars worth of it, destroying the fossil fuel backbone of the American economy.
I'm putting us in a situation where people will have to, just in a few years, have to buy an EV car.
Not have the option, but have to because of these new emission standards that have been adopted by the EPA that are destroying fossil fuel cars.
We're going to look like Cuba if we don't watch out.
We're going to have old cars that you just have to keep running because you can't afford to buy an EV car.
And then also, you don't want one.
So...
Yeah, you can't afford to pay insurance on the EV cars.
Insurance is double, triple.
You can't afford to keep buying tires every 7,000 miles because the heavy battery packs tear up the tires.
The city's roads are torn up at two or three times the rate.
The parking garages aren't engineered for the excess weight of the EVs, and it takes hours to charge it.
What's not to like?
Exactly.
Okay, so we'll put your website here, visible, emord4va.com, and that's spelled out, F-O-R, emord4va.com.
And then...
What?
No.
Answer this.
Your opponent in the general election is the former vice presidential candidate that ran with Hillary Clinton, right?
That's right.
Tim Kaine.
So, like, that alone is the reason to vote for you, I think, in the minds of many people, even if they don't know you.
And then if they do know you and what you stand for, then it's double, triple yes.
You see what I mean?
I mean, it's very clear.
I mean, you have an advocate of liberty versus an advocate of tyranny.
I mean, this guy favors the transitioning of youth.
They just criticized me on Blue Virginia, the Democrat website, because I proposed legislation that will make it a federal felony to aid or cause the transitioning of anyone under the age of 18.
I mean, when you have this whole movement to give mastectomies and hysterectomies to girls and to chemically castrate boys, to render them, you know, just...
for the rest of their lives and doing it and assuming that that's okay, that somehow this is gender affirming care.
It's absolute mutilation and it's brutality.
And Tim Kaine is defending that.
And he is indeed.
That should be his campaign slogan.
Tim Kaine, mutilating children for Virginia.
It's absurd, but we don't need to go down that road today.
I just want to thank you for your time, and thank you for what you're doing to fight for America, for freedom, for liberty.
We wish you the best in your campaign, and we will get the word out and encourage people to donate to your campaign.
There's a donate button on the top, I think it's the top right of your website, and also to get out and vote for you.
You said June 18th is the...
June 18th.
Every health freedom person in Virginia, get out there and vote.
This is your chance.
Okay.
That's when it really matters, folks.
Either get out and vote or stop complaining.
Get out and vote.
That's what it takes.
Thank you so much, sir.
It's always an honor to speak with you.
Have a wonderful evening, and God bless you.
God bless you, too.
Take care.
All right, take care.
All right, folks, that was Jonathan Emord.
You know his website.
You know what he stands for.
Liberty, America, humanity.
Get out and vote for him.
Share this interview everywhere.
You have our permission to repost it on other platforms.
Thank you for watching today.
I'm Mike Adams here at Brighteon.com.
God bless America.
Take care.
Back in stock at the Health Ranger store, we now have the Elderberry Echinacea Tincture Combo, which is outstanding for the immune system.
That's in the middle there.
Back in stock.
We've also got Quercetin available, which is a very popular item, as everybody's learning about the supportive benefits of Quercetin.
We have broccoli sprout powder in capsules now back in stock.
We also have a little bit of the actual powder as it's shown there in that canister.
All these available at healthrangerstore.com.
Go to the website, find out what we have there.
We've got a lot of new products, a lot of products back in stock.
And then also we have the pea protein back in stock.
Now for those who like plant-based proteins, pea protein, it's very smooth.
The texture here is very smooth.
It's also one of the cleanest, well, I think the cleanest plant-based protein you can get in terms of lab test results.
Whereas rice protein sometimes, depending on the source, can have arsenic in it.
We've seen that in rice protein, some lead, some cadmium.
But pea protein is very, very clean.
Some people prefer a whey protein taste, but if you're used to doing vegan proteins, then pea protein is more in your diet.
Really great, clean, smooth product right there.
That's back in stock at our store.
But check out our hundreds of other products at healthrangerstore.com.
And remember that every purchase helps us with our big lawsuit that we filed.
We're suing Google, Meta.
We're suing Twitter or X.
We're suing the Department of Defense.
We're also suing Homeland Security, News Guard, and various NGOs for censorship collusion.
In our lawsuit, we're exposing the censorship industrial complex, and we're working to dismantle it.
To compel the court to actually dismantle this censorship complex so that the free speech rights of the American people can be restored as is supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights under the United States Constitution.
But we have to fight for it and we need your support in order to carry out and fund that fight.
So shop at HealthRangerStore.com and help us take this fight to the censors to dismantle the censorship industrial complex while at the same time enhancing your health and nutrition with laboratory-tested, certified, organic, ultra-clean products that we offer.
Again, HealthRangerStore.com.
Thank you for your support.
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.
▲
Export Selection