All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2022 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
01:01:19
The Lindell Report (12-6-22)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We're all experiencing rising prices, but I was able to secure a limited amount of Giza cotton for a great price, and I'm passing those savings directly on to you.
You can get my Giza Dream bed sheets for as low as $29.98 with your promo code.
They're the most luxurious sheets ever, made with the world's best cotton.
It's grown only in a region between the Sahara Desert, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River.
I know my sheets are perfect for you and I'm extending my 60 day money back guarantee
for Christmas until March 1st, 2023, making them the perfect gifts for your friends,
your family and everyone you know.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code to save 50% on my Giza Dream bed sheets.
That's as low as $29.98.
Quantities are extremely limited at these amazing prices.
So please order now.
Hello, I'm Mike Lindell and I'm excited to announce my original My Slippers are back in stock.
Last Christmas you made them the number one selling MyPillow product and now I've added smaller sizes, larger sizes, wide sizes, and all new colors.
And with your promo code you still save $90 a pair.
What makes my slippers different is my exclusive four-layer design that you're not going to find in any other slippers.
My slippers' patented layers make them ultra-comfortable, extremely durable, and they help relieve stress on your feet.
Wear them anytime, anywhere.
You'll absolutely love my slippers, and I'm extending my 60-day money-back guarantee until March 1st, 2023, making them the best Christmas gifts ever.
So go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen now.
Use your promo code to save $90 on my original MySlippers.
That's only $49.98 a pair.
Quantities won't last long, so please order now.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ This is the Lindell Report, bringing you news combined with
hope by offering practical and achievable action points
to assist you in defending and preserving faith and freedoms.
And by supporting the Lindell Foundation, And now, here is your host, Mike Lindell.
All right, good evening.
Glad you are with us tonight.
Brandon House in for Mike Lindell, who is in a business meeting.
Joining me tonight is going to be Matt Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Council.
Remember, this is THE Matt Staver, who won the case at the U.S.
Supreme Court for religious liberty 9-0 earlier this year.
Matt Staver will join us.
Then we'll be joined by Leo Homan.
We got a kind of a theme going here tonight and with at least the first two guests and that is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, fighting the cancel culture because well we've got some concerns about freedom of religion, freedom of conscience with the cases we're going to talk about with Matt Staver and then with Leo Homan we have an international treaty with the World Health Organization and they're wanting to put into their international treaty well Policies would allow them to deal with so-called misinformation, disinformation.
That means, again, limiting our freedom of speech, but then coming from a Chinese-tied, United Nations-backed organization, the World Health Organization, that could just completely wipe out our national sovereignty and have them declaring pandemics and all kinds of things here.
And, of course, that's not the way it's supposed to be.
Matt Staber can tell you that.
The supreme law of the land is supposed to be our U.S.
Constitution, not what the WHO says.
And then we'll be joined by Ivan Reikland.
Ivan will join us to talk about many things.
But did you know that Ivan is a constitutional attorney?
Did you know that he's the former commander of a Green Beret Division?
Yeah, pretty impressive resume.
I don't know why he didn't tell me that before today.
Anyway, he'll join us.
All right, joining me now is Matt Staver.
Matt, welcome to the broadcast.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you, Brandon.
Good to be back with you.
Thank you for making time for us on such short notice.
Big case at the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Will you tell us about this one?
Yeah, this case is the 303 Creative, and it comes out of Colorado.
Colorado passed this so-called Anti-Discrimination Act that Sweeps up into its ambit people like 303 Creative and its founder and what this does even includes for example a soccer mom that wants to Have a little sale on the internet on the side just to raise some extra income That individual would be included in this public accommodation law and this public accommodation law is a very broad LGBTQ public accommodation law so
What this particular case involves is it comes on the heels a number of years ago of the Jack Phillips case, who also came out of Colorado.
And remember, Jack Phillips, they wanted him to go to a re-education program to learn about LGBTQ in order to continue his business operation there.
So this 303 creative filed a preemptive lawsuit against this law.
This individual creates customized websites for weddings.
So each individual person, couple that's coming in to get married, she creates her own design
specifically for that particular couple and creates that in a very artistic format using
her skills.
She does not want to participate and celebrate and promote or have an artistic creation involving
a same-sex wedding, and so consequently she would be forced to do so under this public
accommodation law.
The argument that just occurred yesterday, I think, indicates that we're going to win this case.
Liberty Council filed an amicus brief in the case, and our arguments in our amicus brief were the impact that a loss on this case would have on the creative arts, whether it's, for example, Copenhagen, the theatrical performance of Copenhagen.
That was a discussion in Copenhagen by someone who was Wanting to create an atom bomb so that Nazi Germany could have it versus someone who was from the Netherlands, who had been taken over by the Third Reich and was opposed to the creation of the atom bomb.
And so that was the dialogue that was taking place.
Imagine if you had a government-imposed speech that said, no, you can only have one message, and that's the message of the Third Reich.
Therefore, anything else, if you want to speak at all, you want to have a theatrical performance, it has to only be in support of the Third Reich.
There's lots of books, pamphlets, magazines, theatrical performances, movies, films, video and photography montages, art, paintings, and so forth.
All these artistic expressions would ultimately be targeted by this government-controlled, impelled speech.
And the Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the government's ability in the past throughout its history of forcing someone to carry a government crafted message.
That's compelled speech.
You have the right to speak.
You also have the right not to speak.
And in this particular situation, Colorado says, if you want to be involved in weddings, for example, in this case, creating websites for weddings, you're going to have to celebrate Same sex weddings.
Well, Brandon, that's as ridiculous as saying to someone who is an expert photographer and they get a call from an individual that says, you know, I'd like to hire your services for your creative activity and ability for an event that we're doing a couple of weeks down the road.
And that event is going to celebrate our 50 years of existence.
So I want you to have a an album that not only captures our 50th year anniversary celebration, But that also captures our history and our heritage and celebrates who we are.
OK, so what is it that you do?
What is it that you want me to capture?
Well, we're an organization that is a KKK organization.
We've been around for 50 years and we want it to be memorialized in an album.
And we want you to be able to create something that's very special for us.
Nobody in their right mind would say that that artist would have to be compelled to create that kind of an album.
And yet, that's exactly what Colorado is saying to anyone who enters into the wedding business or any other kind of business, that you have to celebrate the LGBTQ agenda, whether it's weddings or something else.
So that's why this case is so important.
And Matt, how long do we go from regulating businesses to eventually they're regulating churches?
Well, that's just a short leap.
In fact, if you can regulate a business that is for-profit, in fact, there's really no difference between a for-profit and a not-for-profit.
If you engage in this kind of market, for example, whether you're not-profit and say you're a church and say as a church you want to have a special ministry to celebrate weddings and you have your own photographers and own website designers and Others that you hire on staff to do this and make it a very special program, you would be brought into the same ambit of regulation-enforced government speech.
And you know, Jack Phillips has been dealing with this for six or seven years now, at least, maybe more.
And he knows what it's like to be a target.
And so that's why this case is so important.
I think it's very interesting.
You know, one of the hypotheticals in this case was Well, what if there's a Santa Claus?
In fact, one of the justices brought this up.
What if there's a white Santa Claus at a mall?
And then another one says, well, what if there's a black Santa Claus at the mall?
And they're taking their pictures with these children.
And it doesn't really matter whether the Santa Claus is white or black.
But here you have a little kid now that wants to sit on Santa's lap.
and have his picture taken with Santa Claus and the kids dressed in a KKK outfit. Would that Santa
Claus be forced to sit and put his face alongside this kid celebrating this KKK uniform? And the
answer that even the Colorado attorneys said was no, but they put that in a whole different
category. Oh, that's a whole different category. We don't protect that kind of speech. And yet,
Matt, look at this headline. Tonight, People Magazine is kind of mocking Justice Alito
tastely jokes about black kids in Klan robes, extramarital dating websites during debate.
So the media is trying to mock him for that very argument that you're talking about right now.
Yeah, in fact, what happened was he's the one who actually gave that hypothetical.
And in fact, the newest justice gave a hypothetical about a white Santa.
And he says, well, what if there's this A black Santa and then, you know, a white kid comes and sits on that Santa's lap with a KKK outfit.
You wouldn't expect that that Santa would have to sit there and pose for that picture.
And the Colorado attorney representing the state of Colorado immediately said, oh no, no, that's in a different category.
Well, then Kagan came back and she said, well, she made a comment about black children wearing the KKK outfit.
And that's when Alito Pushed back on that and made this joke It wasn't oh, yeah, like there's a lot of black kids wearing, you know, KKK outfits With the obvious answer is obviously that's absurd But the media then picked up on that and then they're trying to target Justice Alito It's an unfair characterization of what that dialogue was all about the whole point and the point came across very well is that even the state of Colorado admitted that
That they would not force this Santa, African-American Santa, to tolerate his picture being taken with someone that's sitting on his knee with a KKK outfit.
Well, if that's the case, and that should be the case, then why force a person like 303 Creative to use their creative energies and efforts Yeah, absolutely.
Let me ask you on that note.
There's a group of Democrats that we were warning about in the summer of 2020, put out a report, and they have a website with all of their goals, and they said under a Biden administration, they wanted to get rid of the term Judeo-Christian, wanted people to stop using that.
They want to get rid of the term One Nation Under God.
Got to stop using that.
And they also said we need to start investigating these mega churches that are really just political organizations.
We need to investigate them and decide which one are really acceptable to be non-profit churches.
How dangerous is this?
And I don't think most Americans know this, but due to the, correct me if I'm wrong, the separation of, due to the correct definition of the separation of church and state, meaning that the state should stay off the back of the church, not meaning, as the ACLU defines it, anyone that expresses their religious opinion in the public square is somehow now violating the separation of church and state.
But under the legitimate constitutional definition of separation of church and state, churches aren't required by the IRS to go get approval, are they?
The IRS doesn't say, oh, you're a church, you're a church, you're not a church, correct?
That's right.
I mean, there is a correct understanding of a distinction between government and the church, and that is the government does not have the authority under the Constitution, federal and state, to control and micromanage the church.
So consequently, in the IRS regulations with regards to 501c3 nonprofit status, Which means that if you get that status, you are a tax-exempt organization and contributions to you are tax deductible, that the IRS code has always exempted churches from that process.
Churches are free, on their own volition, to apply for a 501c3 tax-exempt letter.
But they don't have to.
They're the only entity that does not.
And the reason for that is that the IRS did not want to inject itself, rightly so, into determining what is and what is not a church.
So when churches are actually started from the very moment of conception, if you will, Without ever applying to IRS, without ever getting an IRS approval 501c3 tax-exempt letter, churches are already considered automatically tax-exempt.
And that's the reason why, because of this distinction between the government's role and the church's role, and that churches have significant autonomy.
And of course the definition of church to the IRS may not be the same as one person down the street or another, but often now religious broadcast networks can be considered a church, correct?
That's right.
In fact, there's a lot of entities that are considered churches as well because of the broader understanding of what a church does and what a church is.
So you could have a broadcasting institution or organization that is a church, and primarily some of those distinctives that they look at are, you know, do you have a doctrinal code?
Do you have a set of beliefs?
Do you have regular meetings that you engage in and educate and share that doctrinal belief.
There's other criteria as well that they look at, none of which individually are dispositive, but there's a series of things that they look at to look at tax-exempt status for others or even churches if they seek to apply, or in most cases, most nonprofits would have to apply.
Churches don't need to apply because they're automatically tax-exempt.
Better, they're tax immune.
And the reason I bring that up is because if you start having these Democrats saying, hey, we want to go around and decide which of these churches are legitimate tax exempt, we're moving into the position now of really licensing churches.
I mean, whether they realize it or not, that's not what they're really trying to say without saying it is we want the government to license the churches that are legitimate churches in their eyes.
That's right.
And in fact, this came about as a result of A report with respect to several ministries that are considered either churches or association of churches.
And these are evangelical organizations.
They do have regular times of worship and meeting.
They do have a doctrinal creed.
So when you start going through the list, it may not be what you normally think of is that this is where you're going to attend church on Sunday, but they do the same kind of functions of a church.
And so this irritated some of the liberal Democrats, and they said, we want to go in and investigate this, and they sent a letter to the IRS.
The fact of the matter is, the First Amendment is going to stop that dead in its tracks.
But they don't really care about the First Amendment, and they may try to do whatever they're going to do until a court stops them.
I can tell you what, if they try to go down this road, they will ultimately run straight into the wall of the First Amendment.
Praise God for that.
Let's go to another important case, folks.
And again, you should look at my screen, guys.
You should go over to LC.org.
This is their website right here.
LC.org.
And you can see all the Liberty updates.
I go here pretty much on a daily basis, but I also get their newsletter, which you can subscribe to by just going to LC.org and get their newsletter and keep up to what's going on.
Here's one of the other ones we've been covering.
I have two more cases I want to cover with Matt before we let him go.
House committee votes.
Here it is.
Tonight, actually this is yesterday, December 5th, the House Rules Committee will meet to vote tonight on H.R.
8404, the bill that enables pedophile marriages to children and codifies same-sex marriage even as it shows disdain to religious freedom.
Okay, so that was last night.
What ended up happening, Matt?
Well, there was going to be a vote today by the full House, but Nancy Pelosi, we learned late this afternoon, has moved that vote to either Wednesday or Thursday, or possibly even later in the week, coinciding with the National Defense Authorization Act.
It may well be because she's losing votes, because we know for a fact, based on our team in Washington, D.C., that some of the Republicans that voted for the bill the first time it came through the House have now changed their mind.
Now that they've seen the impact of this bill, they understand it, and they also realize that it's a direct target to people of faith and religious organizations, they are changing their vote.
And perhaps that's the reason why she delayed the vote.
Otherwise, it would have already happened sometime late this afternoon.
But now you still have time.
It's called H.R.
8404, the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.
Frankly, it's the Disrespect for Marriage Act more likely.
What it does is it extends same-sex marriage across the nation.
So one state has to recognize another state's same-sex marriage.
Beyond that, it goes further than same-sex marriage.
It says that one state has to recognize another marriage, and it doesn't just limit it to same-sex marriage.
So that means that California's child bride laws that are there, meaning there's no age limit at all on how young you can be to marry.
You could be a ten-year-old and still be married And California is one of the few in the nation that has no age limits.
California can therefore set the marriage policy on child bride laws, or child bride weddings or marriages, for the rest of the nation.
For example, in Florida, where I live, Florida used to have no age limit.
And there was a woman, and there's a number of these stories, many, many of these stories surfacing, that was forced into a child bride marriage.
These are not what normal people think of as Maybe a 17 year old who's still a minor marrying somebody who's 19 years of age.
We're talking about somebody who's 50 years of age or so marrying somebody who's 10, 11, 12, 13 years of age.
Typically what happens is they're sexually assaulted, abused, and they're impregnated.
And then they're coerced into getting married.
There's also some cults and there's also some polygamous cults that force these little girls into marriage against their will when they're very, very young.
The problem that happens when they're in that situation in their 10-12 years of age, for example, if they were to leave, even though they're continually sexually abused while they're in this relationship after they're coerced into being married, if they leave, they are considered a minor.
Because they are a minor.
They have no adult rights.
And so if you were to harbor them, you were to even give someone refuge, even some of these ministries that are out there trying to help these sexually abused girls or women.
If they were to harbor them in an overnight shelter, since they are a minor, they could be criminally charged with harboring a minor fugitive.
So it's a very very difficult situation.
They can't leave, they can't rent an apartment because they're underage.
If they flee, they get sent right back to their spouse and the sexual abuse continues until they reach the age of majority.
That happened to this woman in Florida.
And when she did finally reach the age of majority, she was able to finally leave and get a divorce from this abusive situation.
And she went to the Florida legislature to tell them about the story.
This is a very traumatic story that happens across the country over and over again.
Florida passed a law that limits child bride marriages.
Well, under this law, Florida and other states that protect these young girls would be forced to follow California's lead.
So this is a very terrible bill.
It's called HR 8404.
You can go to LC.org and we have emails there so that you can fax your members of Congress, but time is of the essence because the vote will happen either on Wednesday or Thursday or no later than the end of this week from what we are now understanding.
And of course, this is really frightening for all of us that are Christians and want to live out our Christian worldview.
You write at LC.org that 8404 directs the U.S.
Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute anyone who is accused of not honoring, accepting, or Participating in the quote unions in quote outlining this bill it allows for private individuals to file harassing suits So how did how does that exempt churches number one and number two?
How would this exempt?
I don't know.
I mean just Christians wanting to speak about this like me on the air or in a column or a book or what happens to my freedom of speech?
Well, originally this bill didn't have any religious accommodation amendment.
And then Senator Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, and Collins, a Republican from Maine, they wanted to bring over some additional Republican votes.
So they created this very, very narrow religious accommodation provision.
And then last week, Monday, a week ago this past Monday, There were three good amendments that were proposed in the Senate by Senators Lee, Lankford, and Rubio.
They rejected those, which is very telling, because the LGBTQ lobbying organization Human Rights Campaign, they're opposed to all religious accommodations.
So what's there is a Trojan horse.
It's the Baldwin-Collins Amendment.
It's a Trojan horse.
It provides really no religious liberty protection.
The only narrow kind of protection it has is if your primary purpose as a nonprofit or a church, Is the teaching of doctrine and the Bible.
Other than that, no one is protected.
So that means Hobby Lobby is not protected.
That means 303 Creative is not protected.
Jack Phillips is not protected.
Virtually no one is protected.
And it's a very small religious ghetto, if you will.
That ultimately brought a few Republicans on board under this false idea that there's a religious liberty provision.
The fact is, this paints a target on religious organizations and people of faith.
And so, your organization, your ministry, your broadcast would not be exempted from the reach of this bill.
And this empowers the United States Department of Justice, with all of its unlimited resources, to come after individuals and organizations to file suit, and it gives a private right of action.
So you could be sued by individuals, and even if you win five years down the road, the process itself is the punishment.
It'll bankrupt you.
Right, exactly.
Lawfare.
Yeah, and that's exactly why it's there.
You know, it's very telling that the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbying organization in the country, probably in the world, is opposed to religious accommodation provisions in any of these LGBTQ laws.
But they were silent on this, and they didn't actively oppose it.
And the reason is because it's a non-amendment.
It doesn't provide any protection.
It literally is the classic Trojan horse and that's why Baldwin and Collins, two co-sponsors, Uh, they wanted to put this in so they could garner a few additional Republican votes.
Unfortunately, a few Republicans fell for it, and that's why it's now back over in the House for another vote, because they voted in favor of it.
They could have killed it in the Senate.
They should have done that.
In fact, anyone who voted for this or has voted for it in the past, they need to be voted out of office when it comes time.
Matt Staber of LC.org.
LC.org.
Okay, last topic.
This is at LC.org, right there at their website.
Sandra Merritt requests rehearing from full appeals court.
This is today, dateline December 6, 2022.
Liberty Council filed a request for an an in-bank review from the entire Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and a multi-million dollar civil lawsuit against Sandra Merritt for her undercover
investigation of Planned Parenthood and trafficking of tissues and organs from aborted baby body organs. In the
brief, Liberty Council presented argument that the appeals court should reverse the lower
court's ruling, order a new trial, and strike the punitive damages award. Can you speak to
this before we let you go? Yeah, absolutely.
We have two different cases going on.
Next week we'll be back in California on the criminal case that was started by now Kamala Harris, then at the time Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of California, and then picked up by Xavier Becerra, who's now the Secretary of the Health and Human Services.
So we have that one going on.
We'll have a trial in 2023.
This is another one coming out of the same situation.
2015 is when Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden, they did these undercover videos.
They did them in public places in accordance with the law where they filmed these individuals with Planned Parenthood, Stem Express, and other organ procurement companies talking about Aborting babies, harvesting intact body parts from these babies, some of them were alive when it was happening, and then selling them for profit to these research entities that were getting funded, by the way, by Anthony Fauci's National Institutes of Health.
So that's what they uncovered, and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in San Francisco They drew a very pro Planned Parenthood judge.
We tried to get him recused.
He had relations or his wife clearly did with Planned Parenthood and he's also connected with Planned Parenthood as a landlord in an organization that he was with.
Wow!
But he continued to stay on the case and the case went through trial.
We went through a multi-week trial and the judge ended up Then taking the issue of liability away from the jury and told them that they had to find that they were liable and the only issue was damages.
So the jury came back with a multi-million dollar jury award and that's the case that's up at the Court of Appeals now.
We just had a result that was a negative result.
We're asking the full Court of Appeals to review the case and set the trial aside.
It's a sham trial that occurred, and absent that, we'll take the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
So we're now at the next level of the court of appeals argument.
Hopefully the court of appeals will set the case aside, but if not, we're ready to take this all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.
That's essentially where this is going to ultimately end up.
Lots of times, you know, the Ninth Circuit has been historically known for making wrong decisions.
Fortunately, Donald Trump changed that by many of the new appointees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
But, you know, we also have a U.S.
Supreme Court that is next in line if we have to go that far.
But here again, the only reason why Sandra is being targeted is because she's pro-life.
So there's a target on people's backs that are pro-life.
Or that are Christian.
That's what this H.R.
8404 does is target people of faith.
This particular situation with Sandra is the first of its kind in the history of California, where undercover journalists have been charged or sued for doing undercover video work in accordance with the law.
It's so bad that the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times came out with an editorial in favor of Sandra Mayer, not because they are pro-life.
In fact, they said they disagree with her on that issue.
But they agree that she had the right to be able to do what she did.
And the precedent that's being set here is going to be a very significant chill factor against all journalists in California if this does not get overturned.
The setting up of people of faith for persecution and prosecution, you can see the handwriting on the wall.
But I guess that's what Francis Schaeffer warned us since the 70s this was coming, didn't he?
He did.
We have to keep on fighting.
It's just like with the wins that we got this year at the United States Supreme Court.
We got historic wins on the First Amendment, free speech, free exercise of religion.
We got a 51-year-old, terrible precedent, Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned.
It caused significant damage to the First Amendment.
And we also got Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned.
It took generations in the making.
They'll have generations of impact into the future.
We just have to constantly move forward, fight, and never give up.
And that's why, folks, I get nothing for saying this other than having a guy on the front line fighting for my religious liberty and freedom and yours.
That's why it's so important to follow LC.org and support them.
LC.org.
The proof is in the pudding.
He got a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court this year, plus a ton of other victories.
Matt Staver, LC.org.
As always, Matt, we encourage our audience to check out your website, join your newsletter, and support you.
Thank you for all you're doing.
Thank you.
Good to be with you, Brandon.
You too.
Matt Staver checking in, folks.
Check out his website.
Sign up for that newsletter.
Again, I get nothing for endorsing him other than this.
I mean, what I'm saying is this is of my own free will to endorse him and tell you to follow this organization.
What we all get is someone on the front line, as I said, fighting for our liberties and our freedoms.
And he's a very good lawyer, as you can hear and see.
And he's proving it with a 9-0 decision at the Supreme Court earlier this year and other great rulings and victories he's had.
We need more attorneys like Matt Staver fighting for our freedoms.
Thankful for Matt Staver and LC.org.
Joining me now again, Brandon House, in for Mike Lindell, who's in a business meeting tonight.
We're gonna go to Leo Holman.
Before we do, remember, if you appreciate the fact that we're here giving a platform to people like Matt Staver and all the people that we interviewed, all the shows that we have here, it's vital that you support us and here's how you can do it.
One of the ways is by going to MyPillow.com.
And using that promo code L77, sheets, towels, blankets, pet beds, slippers, sandals, mattresses, mattress toppers, robes, towels, so much more.
Please go to MyPillow.com and use that promo code L77.
Do the bulk of your Christmas shopping there.
Get something for yourself.
For family and friends at the same time you're supporting a broadcast outlet that we're just not compromising folks.
We're sticking with it.
We've shown that to you.
We work hard.
We work seven days a week.
We run this broadcast network seven days a week.
Literally 24 hours a day.
And it takes a lot of work to do what we're doing.
And we're working on setting up stuff behind the scenes.
We're about to be broadcasting from Arizona.
Just coming up here on... Let me check my calendar here.
I've been working... I was working on that today.
See, we're always... Even when we're not on the air, we're planning and doing administrative work.
But we'll be broadcasting starting on Saturday, December 17th, the 18th, the 19th, maybe some on the 20th, but we'll be broadcasting from Phoenix, Arizona.
I'll be anchoring from the news desk, but we're sending a brand new field reporter to broadcast from the AmericaFest.
They're in Phoenix.
It's gonna be a huge event.
So again, we're a broadcast outlet.
It's covering a lot of stuff.
We need your support.
MyPill.com, promo code L77, and help Mike Lindell as well at the same time.
Joining me now is Leo Holman before we go to Ivan Reiklin.
Leo, welcome back to the broadcast.
Thanks for joining us.
Hello, Brannon.
Thank you.
All right, let's go to the screen.
Hey, will you guys call Ivan and get him ready to go, please?
Let's go to my website, worldviewreport.com.
Worldviewreport.com.
Here are two articles I put up tonight.
World Health Organization Needs to Plot Censorship of Quote Misinformation Under International Pandemic Treaty.
Here's another one, similar.
World Health Organization Needs to Discuss Granting of Increased Surveillance Powers Under Pandemic Treaty.
Both of these are over at Reclaim the Net.
And I want you to speak to this because it really goes with what we were just talking about with Matt Staver.
You know, people going after freedom of speech, freedom of religion, calling it hate speech, calling it whatever you want, misinformation, disinformation, fake news.
I mean, there is a war on the First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Speak to this and the World Health Organization, which, you know, is so tied to the UN in China.
Absolutely, Brandon.
Well, we're over here, you know, worried about our elections process, and we've got an election in Georgia today where I live, and we'll find out later tonight how that went.
But there's very little in the news what the globalists in our government are doing right now, behind the scenes, in back rooms, secretly, to draft a new pandemic treaty.
And this treaty is well down the road.
Some of the draft is beginning to leak out.
If you look at Article 10 in this draft treaty, it's all about surveillance and how to pick up data on people and surveil their personal private health records and then share those records with other countries, Communist China included.
And then you You know, switch over to Article 14, and it's all about misinformation.
And who gets to define what's misinformation?
Well, it turns out it's the World Health Organization.
And Dr. Tedros, who, quite frankly, was one of the most prolific disseminators of misinformation and disinformation during the COVID pandemic in 2020 and 2021.
Just about everything they said, Brandon, about the so-called virus turned out to be inaccurate and false, and often knowingly false.
It wasn't just that they didn't have enough data, because even after data started coming out, They would continue to lie about the virus and how it spread and, you know, and how it should be treated.
They said that, you know, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would not work and we all had to get vaccinated with this, quote, safe and effective vaccine.
This was all misinformation and disinformation.
And they are the ones, if this treaty ends up getting passed, who would be deciding What we're allowed to say and write on the internet.
As content producers, this is a real threat to people like you and me, Brannon.
Do you ever get the feeling...
Leo, that we're living in the last days of freedom.
I told my wife, I told my wife prior to COVID, I said to my wife several times before COVID, I don't know what caused me to say it, but I did.
I said, we should really relish these days.
We're probably living in high cotton and have no idea.
I saw, you know, all this tyranny and stuff coming.
And I just said, we should really relish these days.
We're living in high cotton.
We don't realize how great we have it right now.
And of course, then COVID happened.
And I still feel that way to one degree.
It's bad what's happening.
But right now I'm still like, well, we should enjoy what freedoms we have,
because I think in a few years we'll wish we had the freedoms we have now.
As limited as they are, as tyrannical as the government is becoming and is,
I think we're going to relish the days of even right now compared to what's coming if this continues.
Yeah, I mean, a lot of people have already had their free speech rights
snuffed out because they work for employers who don't afford them the common decency,
let alone First Amendment rights to speak their minds on, say, Facebook or Twitter.
If they would say anything along the lines of what we say, Brandon, they would be losing their job tomorrow.
And so people like you and I, who are not beholden to these corporate tyrants or don't work for the government or a big corporation, We are really sort of the last bastion of freedom out there.
And I think we're the ones who they're laying their sights on for 2023 and 2024, leading up to, you know, this next big election.
They want to silence us because even though these other people have lost their freedom of speech, I mean, they haven't technically lost it, but if they speak out, they stand to lose a great deal.
Let's put it that way.
But even though they're already being bullied into silence, they can still listen to your shows, read my articles at leohoman.com, and at least be informed.
And I think that's what...
They have in their sights for this treaty that's being developed and drafted right now.
And you add that to what we were talking about with Matt Staver, and pretty soon they could take what we say about Islam, what we say about LGBTQ, transgenderism, and they could actually prosecute us, investigate us.
We just saw from Matt Staver the DOJ wanting to start, you know, investigating people who don't agree with their idea of what is a union or a marriage.
Right.
I think that's going to be largely intimidation.
Lawfare.
You heard him say lawfare.
They'll bankrupt you by the time you get done defending yourself.
I was just getting ready to say they will use the threat of prosecution, criminal prosecution, to intimidate us into silence.
And those of us who are not intimidated, they will use lawfare to try to bankrupt us.
Absolutely.
And so then we go to the other one, the World Health Organization meets to discuss granting of increased surveillance powers.
Can you tell me about this real quick before we go to Ivan?
Yeah, this is the Article 10 that I was briefly referring to a few minutes ago.
If you look in that document under Article 10, Section 2, Number 1, It says measures they want all member states who sign off on this treaty, this international pandemic treaty, to have measures to build and reinforce surveillance systems.
I'm quoting directly from the document here.
Their words, not mine.
Build and reinforce surveillance systems, including one health outbreak investigation and control.
Now, what do they mean when they're talking about One Health?
The One Health system, you see that referred to a lot in UN documents, World Health Organization documents, World Economic Forum talks about it.
This is where they balance human, animal, and plant life.
They balance the health of those three things to create policy that they consider environmentally friendly.
So, if saving human lives could be more damaging to animal or plant life, then, you know, we need to err on the side of maybe animal and plant life as opposed to saving the humans.
So, this is a very dangerous thing that very few people are aware of, the One Health Policy.
And it just gets worse from there.
In number two in that Article 10, It talks about measures to build capacities in genomic sequencing, as well as in analyzing and sharing such information.
So they're going to take people's genomic data and then share it with other countries, including Communist China.
So they can develop a bioweapon that specifically targets Americans.
Specifically targets a certain ethnic group, right.
And number three, it talks about measures to develop prevention strategies for epidemic-prone diseases and emerging, growing, or evolving public health threats with pandemic potential, notably at human-animal environmental interface.
So there you have it, spelling out what I just described in the One Health policy.
Yeah.
LeoHolman.com.
LeoHolman.com.
As always, Leo, we appreciate all your work.
You're so knowledgeable.
Absolutely.
You're so knowledgeable on a vast array of issues, and we appreciate you working with us as you do as one of our associate producers.
Thank you for having me on, Brandon.
Leo Homan checking in.
Now we're going to run quickly to Ivan Reikland.
We're running a little behind.
Ivan, thanks for joining us again tonight.
I know you were on last night, but I called you today because I want to talk specifically with you about a couple things.
One of them is the breaking news tonight.
Here is the breaking news over at worldviewreport.com.
My jaw hit the floor!
Musk fires Twitter's FBI Russiagate lawyer over vetting debacle.
That's over at ZeroHedge.com tonight.
Tell me about this story, Ivan.
Oh, this is only the beginning.
I was expecting that this would occur.
So as Elon Musk essentially scrubs everything, remember, he has everybody's direct messages, both on Twitter and then all the intercommunications that were happening.
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
That's very important.
I want to make sure our audience understands what you just said.
He not only has their public tweets, but if they're using Twitter for a communication back and forth that are private, you know, direct messages, he has all that.
Right.
And basically, I called out on my Telegram channel that, hey, I would be happy to be reinstated on Twitter, and I would be even willing to have all of my direct messages showcased for the whole world to see and investigated, because I know for sure, full stop, that everything that I discuss is totally lawful.
And I expect the same to happen from, oh, I don't know, name the individual that we want to have open DMs for,
particularly for the attorney Vijaya Gade, as well as Jim Baker, if he had any communications.
Not only that, but he should also disclose all the internal communications, text messages, et cetera.
Here's what's gonna come out of this.
This is just the tip of the iceberg that I think is gonna be.
This is essentially a black swan event of truth where he's expediting what we've been fighting for for the last two years at scale.
So I think it's going to be a tipping point where we're going to potentially remedy the 2020 election with the truth that's going to come out.
What does that mean?
What do you mean?
What does that mean?
I mean, it's going to go back to I've argued, like, what are the things that the new Congress needs to do?
In order to educate the country in the court of public opinion I've listed those and I think we might not even need to do it in Congressional hearings because Elon Musk is going to do it at much greater scale Using Twitter.
What does that mean number one?
Everybody that was involved in crossfire hurricane also known as the spying on the Trump campaign He is going to showcase that by going into detail of what this kid James Baker who was the general counsel of the FBI at the time that crossfire hurricane was happening I think he's going to go ahead and tie that all in with all these disclosures.
So for those that don't know the details of what happened, Jim Baker was the general counsel at the FBI that allowed and kind of supervised the illegal spying on Trump, Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, all these players, right?
And then when he was fired in 2018, he went immediately over to Twitter headquarters to work for Bajaj Gade.
What's your name?
the General Counsel, trust and safety lady over at Twitter.
Okay, FBI senior level official now over at Twitter.
We also know that former Twitter folks also work on the, what's your name?
Mamala Harris campaign previously.
You see how all these connections kind of start fitting in together?
And as that is disclosed for the whole country to see, it's going to deconstruct and essentially convince the whole country that the spying on Trump was actually a real thing.
The Mueller investigation was a hoax.
Impeachment hoax one was a hoax.
Impeachment hoax two was a hoax.
All the line of effort that was the friction campaign and the attempted coups on Trump over the last six years are actually all complete bogus hoaxes that were concocted, coordinated, manipulated at the direction of the FBI, who was supervised by Christopher Wray, supervised by the Attorney General Bill Barr, and also provided top cover for that conduct By a guy by the name of Mikey Pence.
I sent you a text earlier today.
Here's my assessment.
I assess, based on all the reporting so far that's out, more is going to come out from Elon.
You do know your camera's gone off, right?
Yes.
Oh, sorry.
So, unfortunately, I can't do the double screen here, or can I?
Split view.
Maybe not.
Nope, I can't.
So, what I wanted to say was... Well, just go to me full screen, then, until he comes back, or... Alright, so go to you full screen, I'm gonna talk about this.
So, I think that the treasonous coup via the election-altering censorship scheme over at the DOJ, FBI, and DHS was essentially an operation led by Mike Pence, AG Barr, essentially supervised by Chris Wray, where they basically went and made sure that the Brian Autins of the world, the supervisory intelligence analyst, That created the whole scheme to spy on Trump.
It was Brian Auten, and then Tim Tebow, Laura Demlow, the section chief of the Bureau's Foreign and Influence Task Force.
Those three individuals were the ones that communicated with the FBI's San Francisco field office, and lo and behold, the supervisory special agent that was the one that interviewed Trump, Flynn, Not interviewed, but gave a counterintelligence briefing to Trump, Flynn, and Chris Christie back in 2016.
That was in the initial phase of Crossfire Hurricane.
Also was one of the two agents that interviewed General Flynn in January of 2017, along with Peter Strzok.
He was transferred over to the San Francisco field office.
Okay?
And I suspect that he then became the liaison between the headquarters team of Jim Baker and the rest of the folks that I mentioned, until Jim Baker came over there, along with an individual by the name of Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan, who was the one doing weekly censorship meetings between Twitter and probably Facebook.
Keep in mind that this individual, postgraduate thesis, claimed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help former, as he calls former, anyway, the first term President Donald Trump.
So these are the individuals that, in headquarters, in the FBI field office in San Francisco, are the ones then communicating with Twitter headquarters Jimmy Baker, who is also coordinating with the Jaya Gaddei to enforce the censorship.
So if you think they were just censoring stuff on the Hunter Biden laptop and that was it, I think you're going to be rudely awakened and mistaken.
I really think that the censorship is going, all of us are going to be proven right, that All of the COVID, what they call COVID-19,
I call the CCP-19 stuff that was censored, that was all actual censorship
as directed by the FBI and DHS.
So what we have here is- All the censorship related to January 6th,
the election fraud and the steal, all of that was directed
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DHS, SISA, and guess who I think was the top cover
to allow and facilitate all that to happen.
Well, Christopher Wray, AG Barr, And Mikey Pence.
And Mikey Pence.
So this guy, Mike Pence, I mean, what do you really know about him?
Don't say anything that's going to get us all sued, but what do you know about him?
You're an attorney.
When it's opinion, then tell me it's an opinion.
But what do you know about this guy?
Because, boy, he really fooled a lot of us, didn't he?
Yeah.
So, I mean, it goes back.
I've done numerous podcasts that really lay things out in detail.
And for the full story, it takes about an hour and 30, 40 minutes.
But I'll give you the overview.
Bottom line is, Pence was foisted on Trump in 2016 because Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and who else there?
Mitch McConnell and Reince Priebus, who's the chair of the party, basically confronted Trump and said, hey, you want any chance of our support in the 2016 general election, you're going to have to allow us to foist Mikey Pence on you because he's going to represent the interests of the duopoly union party on our behalf.
And he's going to be your handler, if you will, because he's the only officer in the government that you cannot fire in the executive branch.
And he's going to be by your side, making sure and monitoring what information you receive.
And then when we create and concoct this, before we get to that, when we move on and showcase the career of the four years as a failed vice president for Mikey Pence, what do we have to show for?
I'll give you some highlights.
Number one, he presided because remember this, this is key to remember.
He was in the House of Representatives, Mikey Pence, before he became governor.
But from 2001 to 2013, he was on in the House and 10 of those 12 years he was on the House Judiciary Committee.
So he probably had relationships as well as his staff like Mark Short and some of the other folks that were staffers.
And the Judiciary Committee had relationships with other folks, mid and senior level folks in the FBI and DOJ.
In addition, when he first started as a congressman, that's when the DHS was created.
The Judiciary Committee is the one that created the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, right?
So you can imagine that he probably had an influence and say and who would staff those senior level positions at DHS.
Fast forward, right?
And by the way, the president was Bush and the vice president was Cheney.
You'll start to see why these relationships matter, right?
And so that's why I call it the Mike Pence J6 cover-up committee headed up by his running mate, Lizzie Cheney.
So let's fast forward.
What else is he known for?
He provided, in my opinion, the cover up for the spying on the Trump campaign.
And there had to be somebody higher than James Comey for him to continue spying on Trump into the presidency that he had top cover for.
And that would have been Mike Pence.
Now, when he was fired, if people don't remember, guess what happened the following day when James Comey was fired as the FBI director?
Lo and behold, Chris Crispy, our good, overweight, obese, nice young gentleman from New Jersey that needs to lay down on his caloric intake.
Well, he tees up Christopher Wray, along with Mike Pence, teeing up Christopher Wray to become the next FBI director.
And guess what happens?
Well, before that even happens, they tried to tee up Robert Mueller to be the FBI director again.
And Robert Mueller was the FBI director from 2001 to 2013, the same time that Mikey Pence was in the house, right?
You can guess and I guess surmise that the relationship was fairly close.
Maybe.
Who knows?
So anyway, when Trump said no to Robert Mueller to be the director after Comey, it was Chris Wray that was presented.
Now, I argue that Mike Pence was the top cover.
He was the one that provided top cover for, remember the New York Slimes article about Anonymous?
It was somebody that was in the Pence camp that created that story.
It was probably somebody in the Pence camp that created that story about how military people are chumps, supposedly, was written in the Atlantic, right?
So all these things, the Impeachment Hoax 1, Impeachment Hoax 2, the Mueller investigation, That could not have proceeded without at a minimum the knowledge of Mike Pence based on his network.
And oh, by the way, if you look up a name by Joshua Pitcock, a former chief of staff for Mikey Pence, his wife was a senior official in the FBI and would have known all about this crossfire hurricane nonsense, right?
So he has a lot of questions to answer.
Yeah, I've done a deep dive on all these players, right?
I'm kind of like the general.
And for the sake of it, that's just absolutely fascinating, by the way.
Absolutely fascinating.
But then we have...
Yeah, I've done a deep dive on all these players, right?
Yeah, I know you have because...
By name, date, location, and transgression.
And for those who don't know, he's a constitutional attorney and a former Green Beret commander.
Combine those two, I want to be America's law offensive coordinator, Brandon.
Law Offensive Coordinator, okay.
And so, there we are on January 6th.
Some folks are about to, in the house, talk about sending some of these results back to the states.
Oh yeah.
Don't get me started.
To be investigated.
And before that can happen... Boom!
January 6th breaks out.
This is a horrible narrative.
Looks terrible.
The optics are awful, obviously.
And... Which, because, again, it seems like it was run by the FBI or their people.
Yeah, all that's gonna come out.
And then... But the point is that then when they convene, people that had the desire to send it back to the States and look into all this, they lost their stomach because what just happened was so bad, Brandon, just real quick, I've been investigating J6 on my own, specifically the government's role.
Like, a lot of what I'm doing is essentially showcasing and identifying the government's transgressions and constitutional violations, you know, by name, date, location, and actor, right?
Actor and transgression.
So, as it applies to January, like, when we go back to January 6th and Mike Pence's role, If you didn't know this, I was the one that tweeted out the memo, the Pence card memo that President Trump then retweeted, that according to the Mike Pence J6 cover-up committee, created the sequence of events for that pressure campaign on Mikey P to go ahead and defend the Constitution, which he just decided not to, right?
And so they're trying to pin it back somehow on me.
But bottom line, it was the legal obligation that he had to send it back to the states on the December 23rd, according to the Electoral Count Act.
And then that kind of pushed over into January 6th, where some other attorneys, which I disagree with, they were basically claiming that he could unilaterally do something.
I and people in my network never asked for him to do anything unilaterally.
It was literally, hey, you have discretionary authority to send it back to the states for the states then to correct their illegally certified electors, if you will.
On January 6, Mike Pence violated blatantly two provisions of our Constitution, all three, the Fifth Amendment and the Twelfth Amendment, because he didn't allow for a quorum to be present in the joint session.
And then the other one is that he acted as a commander-in-chief and president without that authority when he ordered around the National Guard prancing around the Capitol to do so.
So, I mean, he's basically, his actions were treasonous and so were General Milley's by accepting those orders and acting on them.
Wow, Ivan Reikland.
Ivan, thank you as always.
Great job.
Appreciate it.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Someone you're going to see here on the network regularly as we check in with him.
Constitutional attorney and former commander of the Green Beret, one of their divisions.
Again, mypillow.com.
Use promo code L77.
Support Mike, this show, this network.
Let's defend America.
Go do some shopping for family and friends.
Use that code L77 at mypillow.com.
Take care.
You're watching Lindell TV.
Hello I'm Mike Lindell and I'm excited to announce my original MySlippers are back in stock.
Last Christmas you made them the number one selling MyPillow product and now I've added smaller sizes, larger sizes, wide sizes and all new colors.
And with your promo code you still save $90 a pair.
What makes my slippers different is my exclusive four-layer design that you're not going to find in any other slippers.
My slippers' patented layers make them ultra comfortable, extremely durable, and they help relieve stress on your feet.
▲
Export Selection