Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:46:55

20200406_Mon_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- The British are coming, the British are coming.
	- You are about to be marked on the great debate.
	- And one small prayer for us.
	- America first.
	- There's a lot.
	- What's your husband?
	- Welcome back to American Countdown.
	As we discussed tonight, resolved that the Bill Gates-backed models misled the White House, misled governors, misled the president into shutting down our economy and experimenting with our constitutional liberty.
	The evidence for that is increasing, particularly today as many of the models backed by Bill Gates or supported by him or cited by him, in many cases by modelers who have financial or other political ties to Bill Gates or Gates Foundation, are turning out to be completely wrong.
	And not just wrong in terms of what they estimated without the shutdown.
	These are models that were estimating the deaths, the mortality rate, the hospitalization rate, the ICU rate, the ventilator rate with the shutdown.
	They presumed that the deaths would continue to skyrocket, would continue to have endless exponential growth.
	And it was on that basis saying, look, whether the hospitalizations, you're going to overrun hospitals throughout the entire country.
	You're going to overrun ICU units, intensive care units all across the country.
	You're not going to have enough ventilators.
	You're going to be short by tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of ventilators, which are going to lead to people to die unnecessarily.
	These are the predictions in the forecast that led governors, mayors and the president to recommend in some form, or in the case of governors and mayors, actually shut down almost all of civil society, shut down almost all of the economy, trigger an economic contraction that former Fed Chairman
	Chairwoman Yellen today said would could lead to a 30% contraction in the economy and as already likely has real double-digit unemployment rates today that just aren't catching up yet in the stats that are being reported but that will be coming in the weeks and months to come unless there is a reversal by the president.
	That is what's at stake.
	Did Bill Gates do so deliberately?
	Did he do so unintentionally?
	Is it part of a culture of conformity that dominates the high-ranking academia that we have and the high-ranking government-supported and subsidized aspects of our public health institutions, both within the university structure and the state and federal governmental structure?
	Was it because there's been a corruption of those institutions by think tanks and foundations that have politicized agendas different from the public health agenda that these people are supposed to be promoting?
	Well, let's just go to some of the examples today and look at some of the charts.
	First, let's look at chart number one.
	If we look at chart number one, what you see here is the hospital activity from Arizona that's being tracked.
	And what you find is that the hospital activity has steadily been going below average, not above average.
	Even though this involves Arizona, the models forecast and predicted that there would be a continue endless exponential growth so that when you got to March, it would be going up, up, up.
	Instead, it's been going down, down, down.
	Let's look at chart number two.
	These are the total new hospitalizations in New York.
	This is what's supposed to be the epicenter of this pandemic.
	These charts, these numbers were supposed to keep going up exponentially.
	But as you see on here, over a week ago, it flatlined.
	And now it's starting to decline.
	This was supposed to be the worst week.
	Last week was supposed to be the second worst week.
	Instead, that turned out not to be true.
	The models were completely wrong.
	Let's go to chart number three.
	And this data is widely out there.
	Here, for example, you see on the left versus the data on the right, you're seeing these charts that are projecting these huge growth rates that were supposed to occur even with the shutdown.
	And instead, what's actually happening is that that little chart, that purple number, you can barely see below.
	That, in fact, it is way, way, way below what they reported.
	Way below in the number of hospital beds needed.
	Way below in the number of hospital care needed.
	Way below in the number of ICU beds needed.
	Way below in the number of ventilators needed.
	Way below in the number of deaths that were going to occur.
	They were completely wrong by a scale of 5 to 10 X ratio.
	Let's go to chart number 4.
	Here we see again there was this exponential growth and then it dropped off.
	And let's look at some of the... There were in fact some people who were predicting and forecasting this not long ago.
	But they were people you can find on Twitter.
	One of them is called Barnes Law.
	One another you'll listen to and hear from tonight, Jordan Schachtel.
	Others like Alex Berenson and others who were simply looking at the actual data and seeing that both the history of viruses and the actual data that we had from other countries and regions was suggesting that there would be no endless exponential growth.
	Nor would a shutdown be needed or even necessarily beneficial to be able to procure a flattening of the curve and declining of the curve.
	Let's go to chart number 10.
	Here you're going to see what a typical if we go to I'm sorry.
	Yeah, chart number 10.
	If we go up next the.
	A typical virus actually follows what's called a bell curve.
	Now it's called a bell curve because imagine it's like a bell and you could put a little sound in it and you could sort of, you know, like a bell choir or bell, Liberty Bell or any other bell.
	That's what it follows, it follows a bell curve.
	And what happens with a virus is typically on that way up, it's finding the most vulnerable, susceptible members of a population for that particular virus.
	But then it tends to run into a wall.
	And when it runs into a wall, at the top of that curve, is when it runs into people that will only be asymptomatic, will never develop a disease from the infection, and will not spread the infection at any high rate at all.
	Secondly, it runs into people who simply won't be infected.
	And how did we know this was possible?
	Because if you follow the Diamond Princess, you knew that in fact, over 83% of the people on the Diamond Princess, even though they were stuck in an infected cruise ship for more than three weeks, eating food from infected chefs, sleeping in beds cleaned by infected cleaners, and having recycled infected air every day and every night in their room from people who had the virus for weeks and weeks, for over three weeks in this context,
	83% of them, despite being a disproportionately vulnerable and susceptible population due to the age demographics of those on that cruise ship, 83% of them never even got the infection.
	Others became asymptomatic and did not spread it.
	Others got a very mild disease from it, did not get any serious debilitating deathly disease from it.
	So we knew from a live example that it was highly unlikely that these models predicting something that was completely ahistorical The past is prologue, as Shakespeare said.
	And if we looked at the past in the context of this virus, in the context of past viruses, flu-like, influenza-like viruses over the past century, including even one of the worst, the Spanish flu, or you could talk about the Hong Kong flu in the 1950s, the Asian flu in the 1960s, all of these ended up killing more people than, in fact, it looks like now this coronavirus will.
	The, those viruses had a certain, ran into the same problem.
	Basically they reached, that bell curve went way up when it was reaching the vulnerable and susceptible.
	Then it ran into a wall of people who simply were either asymptomatic or would not get it.
	And then it just declined dramatically after it hit that wall.
	That's the bell curve almost every virus has followed.
	Yet, if we look at what they were projecting here, they weren't projecting a bell curve, they were projecting a continuous, endless, exponential rise.
	Something that had not happened in history, in the recent history of the viruses.
	So let's, if we go to some additional charts that were released today, let's look at chart number 20.
	Here you'll see that in terms of what the models were predicting, you'll see that big chart at the top is what was supposed to be happening, and instead what's happening is way less than that.
	And that number keeps coming down and down and down and down.
	And these were charts that presumed, those exponential endless growth charts, presumed the shutdown would mitigate the effect.
	So they were just completely wrong by a ratio of 2x, 5x, 10x, 20x.
	Now let's go to chart number 25.
	Here you have Governor Cuomo admitting that the total new hospitalized has either flatlined or has been going down now for days.
	This was supposed to be the worst moment, not supposed to be the time period when it's going down.
	And yet that's precisely what's happening.
	Let's go to chart 26.
	Here you see the number of hospital beds they are estimating just recently, just within days.
	And this was the main model the White House was relying upon, and that people were telling President Trump to rely upon, saying hundreds of thousands are still going to die.
	Now they've come back today and said, ah, they're wrong by a ratio of 4x, 5x, 10x.
	Let's look at chart number 27.
	Here we see the same dynamic.
	Look at that endless exponential rise that they projected.
	It turned out they were completely wrong and completely off.
	That's their new projections, admitting that they were completely wrong and completely off in just one location of hospital beds needed.
	They were wrong about hospital beds in New York, wrong about hospital beds in Colorado, wrong about hospital beds in Tennessee.
	Wrong about hospital beds in Alabama.
	Wrong about hospital beds in Louisiana.
	Wrong about hospital beds in Illinois.
	They are wrong about hospital beds in almost every state in the Union.
	They are wrong about the number of ventilators needed in almost every state of the Union.
	Need further evidence of that?
	Governor of Washington, Governor of Oregon, Governor of California, Governor of New York, all talking about how they don't need any more ventilators or even going to be sending back ventilators.
	Remember how the president had committed a debacle and there are people recommending he get prosecuted by the International Criminal Court?
	Other prosecutors saying that people like Glenn Kessler and others talking about prosecuting him in the DC federal courts, all based on, oh, we don't have enough ventilators.
	It turns out we have too many ventilators in the supposed epidemic centers like Washington and New York.
	Let's look at chart number 31, which is probably my favorite.
	If you look at those first two, that's what was supposed to happen.
	Huge, huge growth.
	All these problems.
	Hospitalization.
	This one's about hospitalization.
	Other one's about mortality.
	Other one's about ventilators.
	Other one's about ICU units.
	All of which there was going to be overcapacity.
	All of which was going to be overcrowded.
	Look at that new projection.
	It is way, way down.
	Turns out they were wrong from the get-go.
	They were wrong from the inception.
	And it is not as if this is completely without any prediction.
	Here's an article and we'll go to some of the videos as well.
	Dr. Richard Chabas said, strictly by the numbers, the coronavirus does not register as a dire global crisis.
	He talked about this on April the 6th.
	It was printed in the opinion section of the Globe and Mail.
	And who is Richard Chabas?
	He was Ontario, Canada's chief medical officer of health for 10 years and was chief of staff at a key hospital during the SARS crisis.
	So this was someone who is intimately familiar with these kind of pandemics.
	These kind of viruses.
	Asia-derived viruses that involve different kinds of coronavirus.
	And here he was saying from the get-go, is COVID-19 a global crisis?
	Certainly for people who can't add.
	And his point was that this is what was going to happen.
	You're going to have this early high growth, then it would flatline, then it would drop.
	No matter what mitigation tactics you took for the most part.
	In addition, there are others pointing this out in different contexts.
	For example, how to understand and report figures for COVID deaths.
	And they were simply pointing out that unless you mislabeled the cause of death, in other words, you said that someone who died of the flu or influenza, now you're going to say died of COVID-19.
	Someone who died of a heart attack, you're now going to re-label, change their cause of death to, and this was by Dr. Lee, printed in this spectator, and he just pointed out that if you looked at the real death numbers, the increase in the actual mortality rate over expectation, That would be the measurement for COVID-19's impact.
	What they call excess deaths in the medical literature.
	If you looked at that, you would find a far lower number.
	That as many as 90% of the deaths being recorded in Italy were likely not caused by COVID-19 by various estimates that are looking at the reporting.
	Why?
	Because if someone comes in and dies of a heart attack, And they test for COVID-19, or in some cases, if the doctor merely thinks they have COVID-19, then they're being labeled as having died from COVID-19.
	This is happening all across the Western world.
	Now, not all countries are doing it.
	Sweden, Germany, other countries are trying to be more specific, more particular, trying to follow traditional medicine about cause of death, traditional legal principles.
	To give you an example, in the law, it's called proximate cause.
	And what is proximate cause?
	It's one of the most important concepts in the law.
	So, before somebody gets to sue someone else for saying that they have had some sort of harm imposed upon them, they have to show that that person's actions were the proximate cause for their injuries.
	It's called but-for causation.
	So, often correlation doesn't equal causation.
	So, for example, there are people out there suggesting that the mitigation tactics taken, such as the shutdown, are why the model is turning out completely wrong.
	Well, there's three core problems with that.
	Under proximate cause legal standards, you have to be able to separate out comparable examples.
	So, in this instance, if the models had not anticipated or included the shutdown information, then that might be a credible argument.
	But it's not.
	Because the models both from Imperial College and from the University of Washington by Mr. Murray, both of whom have connections in different ways to Bill Gates or Gates Foundation or political patrons of Mr. Gates, just like Burks does, just like Fauci does in the White House.
	All of this comes back to some connection to Bill Gates or a Bill Gates Foundation or other people that share his political agenda.
	His father was a prominent leader in the Planned Parenthood movement in Washington.
	So you get some sense of where his ideology comes from.
	All of these people were forecasting these horrendous rates of hospitalization and overcapacity at the hospitals and ICU problems and people dying on the floor and war zones and all of that stuff, putting tents out in Central Park, putting tents out in the street to be able to take care of the excess care, how the morgues were overfilled and they didn't even have capacity for bodies.
	All of that talk, like the nurse whose video went vile and was reported by CBS News and then it came out today that a lot of her information was not properly vetted before they put it up there, that she hadn't in fact been a nurse for a certain period of time.
	So all of these things being pushed were based on presumed the shutdown was in existence.
	Their data was assumed that these numbers would still happen even with the shutdown.
	So it cannot be the case that the models were wrong because the shutdown had a beneficial effect when the models already assumed these numbers that turned out to be woefully wrong included the shutdown.
	The second problem is this.
	Both history and other contemporary examples disprove the suggestion that the shutdown was either needed, necessary, or even beneficial for the purposes of what's happening now in terms of these model numbers being totally wrong.
	In this context, look at Sweden, look at Japan, look at South Korea, look at Taiwan, look at countries around the world that refused.
	Look at the Netherlands that refused to impose any kind of broad scale civil society shutdown, refused to impose any degree of economic shutdown on all businesses.
	And they are experiencing the same or even better rates of decline in the death rate and the deadly impact of this disease than we are in the United States, particularly in its epicenter in New York.
	So, if we go further, look at history.
	History during the Spanish Flu has been studied by National Geographic and put out in a report some years ago.
	They looked at all of the cities and towns across the country and how they reacted and responded to the Spanish Flu and whether certain tactics or techniques clearly had an evidentiary basis, proximate cause, for a decline in the growth rate of the disease in their local community.
	And what they found was that all that was really necessary was not having mass gatherings, encouraging people to have different forms of social distancing, but no economic shutdown was required.
	In fact, unemployment went down during the Spanish flu, not up.
	There was no broad-scale economic shutdown by any community.
	There was no complete suspension of constitutional liberty in any community.
	None of that occurred.
	And yet, they achieved even greater declines in the growth rate of the Spanish flu than we have achieved with our complete shutdowns here.
	So both contemporary examples from other countries and parts of our own country, states like Wyoming and other states that have not done these kind of shutdowns, eight states that the media was trying to shame into coercing them into doing a shutdown refused to do so.
	They have not experienced any of the exponential growth or any part of the exponential growth forecast for them by the various modelers.
	So the modelers ended up wrong about New York, wrong about almost every state in the Union, wrong around the world, wrong in the United Kingdom, and then at some point you have to begin to question why, what was their motivation, and it comes back to them having a political agenda different than the President's, having a political agenda that they share in some significant respect in either past political affiliation or monetary association with Bill Gates and his foundation, who wants to legitimize vaccines and other forms of medical treatment that he's a strong
	believer of that does appear at times to be associated and affiliated with population reduction agendas that his father shared when he was a leader in Planned Parenthood.
	It is not also as if this was totally unpredictable.
	If we go back into further detail, we will find that people not connected to Bill Gates, people who are not on his foundations, people who are not affiliated or associated with him, people who have never received any money from him, such as epidemiologists across the country, people that do statistics and microbiology around the world, were raising questions and challenging and questioning the established wisdom about this.
	Not only the Ontario doctor we showed before, but this included German doctors, this included Canadian doctors, this included prominent statisticians at Stanford, this included a prominent Yale member of public health.
	All of them saying that it made much more sense to have a targeted, narrowly tailored remedy available than a broad shutdown which could have deep damaging public health effects and its collateral economic impact and how that will impact and social isolation impact.
	and lack of civil liberties aspect, which might never be restored.
	As the old joke goes, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.
	The same is true of the suspension of constitutional liberties.
	Today in America, we have the greatest shutdown of civil liberties and the greatest deprivation and state power grab of constitutional liberties that we've had in our entire history by far.
	It's not even close.
	During the Spanish flu, we didn't do any of these things.
	During the Hong Kong flu, we didn't do any of these things.
	During the Asian flu, we didn't do any of these things.
	We have never done this.
	And our founders were intimately familiar with the nature of viruses and how dangerous they could be and how dangerous pandemics could be.
	But there's no example at all of this.
	Of them considering, contemplating, or even putting a single word of exception into the Constitution or the Bill of Rights for a pandemic.
	And yet today about 90% of the United States population lives in a city, county, or state where they are denied their First Amendment right of free expression, where they are denied their First Amendment right of public association, where they are denied their First Amendment right of religious expression.
	Where they are denied, in some cases, as the NRA has had to sue in New York, their Second Amendment rights to buy and purchase weapons.
	In other areas, I'm getting emails constantly from people who cannot be able to get a gun for their self-defense despite the wide-scale release of criminals by a whole bunch of cities, counties, and states across the country because the background check departments have been shut down or furloughed.
	So even where they haven't shut down the gun stores, they've shut down the ability to purchase a gun by shutting down or furloughing the people that will clear your right to purchase it.
	The same pattern is appearing across the board.
	Not only that, burglaries are up 75%, particularly at commercial establishments in New York City, in Seattle, and rising crime in Houston, rising crime in San Francisco.
	The major cities that impose the broadest scale shutdowns are precisely the cities experiencing, and the ones that had the most release of prisoners and inmates, are the ones experience a rising crime rate amongst commercial establishments.
	And disproportionately, that's going to be your small business.
	It's going to be someone who's not insured for it, not covered for it, doesn't have the means to restock, doesn't have the means to reinventory.
	In fact, just as an example of what's happening to the economy today, let's look at what dairy farmers are having to do all across the country because the economy has been shut down at a core level.
	Let's look at video number one.
	So here you see that this is a big dairy truck.
	And what is the dairy truck having to do because of the economic shutdown?
	because of the societal shutdown?
	They're having to pour out their milk.
	Just have to just waste it on the ground because that's what's happening when you have this degree, this scale of a shutdown.
	But while criminals walk free and people can't purchase, lawfully purchase a gun, innocent people are being targeted for simply doing things like walking in the park.
	Let's take a look at an example of that in video number two.
	COVID-19 volunteer Toronto Task Force.
	Please maintain a social distance of at least six feet.
	Again, please maintain social distancing.
	Please help stop the spread of this virus, reduce the death toll, and save lives.
	For your own safety and your family's safety, please maintain social distancing.
	Thank you for your cooperation.
	We are all...
	Nothing freaky about that at all.
	Just having a robocop have a drone, many of these drones are made and produced in China, filming you, watching you, observing you, and speaking to you in some computer automated voice that somehow it's bad to simply take a walk in the park.
	That is where we're at.
	There's people that have been arrested or been threatened with arrest for weightlifting in their front lawn.
	There's people that have had their child endangerment citations for simply having a small engagement get-together.
	There are people that have been threatened for merely, people have been arrested for paddle boarding in Malibu, my old home.
	There's people that have been threatened with various forms of arrest or citations or had it done for simply driving in their own car.
	Or taking a boat out on the lake.
	That is the scale and scope to which we're at.
	Not to mention the pastors being arrested or charged or threatened with arrest for simply holding religious services.
	Or petition circulators who can't get on the ballot because they're not allowed to circulate petitions in support of their candidacy or their cause.
	This is happening systematically all across the country.
	And this doesn't even get to other aspects of constitutional liberties being infringed upon with regularity.
	But there are other doctors who warned us that these models, that we're going to create this constitutional crisis, that we're going to create this economic debacle, that was unnecessary and in fact unwarranted either by history or the data.
	As an example, let's look at video number three, where a prominent American public health official, doctor, former public health official, was talking about this.
	Here's Dr. Anthony Fauci.
	We all know he's as famous as the president right now.
	He's the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and here he is in early March, just a couple of weeks ago.
	Quote, the flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent, one-tenth of one percent.
	This, meaning the coronavirus, has a mortality rate of 10 times that.
	Close quote.
	Here's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in his piece in the Wall Street Journal.
	Again, this is March 24th, just a couple of days ago.
	And you're talking about when you think the virus was first seeded in this country.
	An epidemic seed on January 1st implies that by March 9th, about 6 million people in the US would have been infected.
	As of March 23rd, That Monday of this week, there were 499 COVID-19 deaths in the US.
	That's a mortality rate of 0.01%.
	In other words, a whole order of magnitude less than Dr. Fauci claimed just a couple of weeks earlier.
	I think the thing is, nobody knows the number.
	The numbers we've seen are consistent with a very, very wide range.
	From an epidemic that will kill 2 to 4 million people on one end, and an epidemic that will kill 50,000 to 100,000 people on the other.
	That's an incredibly broad range, and the policies you do to avoid 2 to 4 million deaths are very, very different than the policies you do to avoid 50,000 to 100,000 deaths.
	Exactly.
	And now it may even be the case that 50 to 100,000 deaths may have overstated the risk.
	That's the degree to which these models were wrong.
	Over 100,000 died during the Hong Kong flu here in the United States.
	More than half a million died over time from the Spanish flu in the United States.
	Millions died worldwide, yet we're seeing no evidence that that is what's really going to occur with this coronavirus, and yet we've taken tactics and steps that have never been taken before.
	Was this just a pretext for a power grab by politicians who've long yearned for it?
	Was it just a pretext for Wall Streeters to help bail themselves out and disguise a wide range of systemic problems and flaws in the economic system that they'd wanted to be able to clean from their books under the guise or fig leaf that this was just for the virus?
	What has happened when these models are so wrong, so badly wrong, so consistently wrong, and when they all just coincidentally happen to have individuals or institutions tied to Bill Gates in some continuous manner?
	Let's just look at one more video from another doctor raising questions.
	Let's go to video number four, talking about the problems with these strategies being employed by Fauci and crew.
	You mentioned in the piece that, in fact, you think containment would prolong the duration of the virus.
	Yes.
	Can you talk about that?
	With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity.
	About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won't even have recognized that they were infected or they had very, very mild symptoms, especially if they're children.
	So it's very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus, to get herd immunity as fast as possible.
	And then the elderly people who should be separated and the nursing homes should be closed during that time can come back and meet their children and grandchildren after about four weeks when the virus has been exterminated.
	What he's talking about there was the same ideas advanced in a New York Times editorial, no less, by a leading public health official at Yale.
	That we should have targeted, tailored remedies available, protect the vulnerable from this pandemic, but not completely suppress civil society and completely crush economic life.
	In fact, that was part of an open letter by a German doctor who did the same things.
	Went on YouTube, went on videos, talked about it everywhere he can.
	When we come back after the break, we're going to take your calls in the next hour.
	But next up will be Jordan Shackle, one of the people brave enough and bold enough to challenge and question the conventional wisdom right out of the gate.
	We're going to be discussing how these models went wrong, how there was evidence beforehand of how these models could and would go wrong.
	And so come back and join us after the break for further discussion about how the panic exceeds the plague.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We'll briefly be up with Jordan Schachtel, one of the few people to report this information accurately and honestly.
	But let's look at what really was happening during this time period.
	Big tech's effort of censorship and gatekeeping is part of what Eric Weinstein or Peter Thiel will call the gatekeeper institutional narrative.
	Helped mitigate the ability, unless you're on Twitter following someone like Jordan Schachtel, you didn't know what was happening in the real world.
	The media, YouTube, was reinforcing this.
	Google search engines and algorithms were reinforcing this.
	In fact, you have headlines like this.
	Federal health agencies block journalists' access to COVID-19 experts and information.
	YouTube, just now, is finally allowing creators to monetize videos that even mention the word coronavirus.
	Why?
	So that articles like this one from John Ioannidis, a prominent, one of the most, one of the best people that does stats, biology, epidemiology all well, wrote a piece in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, put it in other places as well, pointing out the harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence based measures.
	He talked about that what's happening is the challenge of the coronavirus is being compounded by exaggerated information leading to inappropriate actions with an epidemic of false claims and potentially harmful actions in civil society.
	The tracking site now suggests the White House model is overestimating coronavirus hospitalizations.
	That's putting it generously.
	When you're off by a ratio of 5 to 10, you're a little bit more than just slightly exaggerated the intel.
	From the Epoch Times, New York hospital discharges outpace new admissions for the fourth straight day.
	Because if you're going to have a hospitalization crisis, that stat can't be true.
	And yet it's a stat that's hardly being reported by the mainstream or establishment press.
	Leave it to the Russian press to actually cover U.S.
	health crises more accurately, sadly, than a lot of our establishment press who's into the panic button and the hysteria mongering that's been going on and the fear porn that they've been selling on a 24-7 basis.
	But as Sputnik goes through all the different countries, including Sweden, including Japan, including the Netherlands, including Taiwan, that are employing different methods and having even more success rate than the United States or large parts of the West.
	You have a good piece from MIT Technology Review about how long the coronavirus can live in the air and on packages.
	But you have to dig into the article to find out that, by the way, there's actually no evidence that it can be transmitted to someone else over any extended time period in the air or because it's on a package.
	Another headline from the Epoch Times.
	The CCP virus, US hospitalizations way below projections of the models.
	A mounting casualty of the coronavirus crisis.
	And I put this out because nurses and doctors were emailing me, direct messaging me, texting me, saying, by the way, what they're saying about all the hospitals being overcapacity across the country is bogus.
	We're getting furloughed.
	We're getting laid off.
	In fact, we think people that need medical care, one of the big issues that Jordan raised very early on is that people who need medical care are not getting that medical care or would not be getting that medical care because of the effects of the shutdown.
	Well, now it's in prominent news.
	The New York Times reported on it.
	Another publication, a mounting casualty of the coronavirus crisis.
	Healthcare jobs.
	When I put that out, people were telling me, oh, it's fake news.
	Can't be true.
	All the hospitals are overcapacity.
	It's just false intel, false information.
	Chinese, and while this is going on and we needed critical medical supplies, turns out that was exaggerated in terms of the scope and scale of what we needed it, but still we needed some for sure, particularly masks that almost all the governments were telling us we didn't really need for ordinary civilians.
	It turned out part of the reason was because the Chinese regime is hoarding the global inventory of medical supplies, and they started doing it right after the virus got out.
	So this is what's been happening.
	And then look at the economic consequences.
	Janet Yellen says second quarter GDP could decline by 30% and that unemployment is already at 12 to 13%.
	As you heard on Thursday from George Gammon, one of the three critical components of economic progress and growth is confidence.
	Well, in the UK, confidence drops the most on record, most in history.
	Lose confidence, lose the economy.
	That's why the Great Depression lasted more than a decade.
	Emerging markets.
	These are small markets around the world that have experienced no decline in growth for about 50 years because they're small markets just entering the global economy.
	And well, now emerging market economies brace for a hit.
	Now they say from the coronavirus, they should say it's from the panicked reaction to the coronavirus.
	Now a lot of what's been holding up pension funds, inflating their value in the stock market, has been buybacks by banks and corporations of their own stock.
	But what's the headline today?
	Bank buybacks are dead for 2020.
	In fact, they're writing off more and more losses.
	Well, what's happening with your civil liberties?
	Well, just in case your First and Second Amendment violations weren't bad enough, and your Fifth Amendment loss of property and business wasn't bad enough, now there's consistent Fourth Amendment invasions of your privacy, with Google even sharing it with the New York Times.
	According to this headline, Google to release your location data to help fight the pandemic, of course, because they have to spy on you to protect you from yourself.
	And then you have wonderful things like the St. Louis Federal Reserve head saying Americans should be tested daily and forced to display a badge on their clothing.
	There's no historical example of that turning out bad, right?
	So that's where we are.
	Let's talk to bring in one of the people who's been one of the best in the country on this topic, was one of the earliest people on this topic, Jordan Schachtel.
	How are you, Jordan?
	Thanks for having me.
	Appreciate it.
	What led you to originally be skeptical of the institutional narrative on this?
	Because the pressure to be on board with it was huge.
	I think you have to start at the beginning.
	You know, I'm a foreign policy, national security guy.
	And I did a little bit of reading about pandemic response in the past.
	And I had to go back a couple of years to see what I had written about it.
	And basically, I came to the conclusion that these projections and models We're pushing outcomes that were very irregular and unusual.
	So that's what kind of got me from, you know, everyone just, you know, we are all in this together mode to hold on, what's going on here?
	Why are we nitpicking one model over the other?
	What's with these outcomes that they're pushing?
	How do these epidemiologists know how to lock down an entire country as part of a mitigation strategy?
	And the more questions I asked, the more I became convinced that these people didn't really have a handle on exactly what was going on.
	And they're basically just, you know, conducting a massive social and medical experiment based on a hypothesis that is being proven wrong.
	You know, they said that this big tidal wave was coming to America.
	It was going to hit every city, every state, every town.
	It was going to wipe out countless people.
	And we see a much different virus.
	We see one that's really targeting, you know, areas, urban areas with these multi-generational households, people living on top of each other.
	We see very different transmission than what they thought.
	So I think that I began to question there and now I'm totally stunned that we're still embracing these false models that keep reorienting themselves every single day.
	It's been extraordinary all the way through.
	So that was, I think, a good point because your foreign policy background experience with dealing with these kind of issues or researching or reviewing these kind of issues and particularly employing empirical and rational tests on the credibility of the source of the information, not merely deferring to someone because they have a white lab coat. not merely deferring to someone because they have a white
	It's been unsettling the degree to which people on both what I would call the loosely the populist left and the populist right, though even worse on the populist left, have completely capitulated to a narrative.
	It's like it turns out.
	That if you're wearing a military uniform and you've been making this very apt analogy that this is a lot like the excuses for why we have to be in Afghanistan for forever.
	It was like the excuses way back as to why we had to stay in Vietnam for those people who didn't want us to get out of there or Korea for that matter.
	And it's there's always some excuse or pretext.
	It's how it's just right or the solution or the problem is just right around the corner.
	Just two weeks in this case.
	Just a year more in Afghanistan in that case.
	Just six months more in Vietnam back in the day.
	And if you're familiar with how foreign policy rhetoric and logic works, it puts you at high alert for the potential risk that someone's misleading you for an ulterior agenda or because they're simply part of a groupthink culture that discourages dissident independent information.
	Which do you think was most prominent here in these bad models coming out from people that are disproportionately connected to Bill Gates?
	Well, I think you see these models and outcomes and proposals require vast amounts of expertise.
	Similar to, you know, the Afghanistan and Iraq problem that you were talking about.
	How to win over hearts and minds of people trying to accomplish these incredibly difficult things and military generals claiming that they had all the answers.
	Or policymakers and past administrations saying, you know, we can just implement this strategy and we'll figure it all out.
	But this is doing these societal things, take an enormous amount of expertise.
	And unfortunately, it leads people into this false sense of confidence that they can accomplish goals that are basically godlike in their objectives.
	In terms of the Bill Gates folks, It's very disturbing that Bill Gates seems to have a monopoly on the studies that the government is relying on.
	I'm sure you've talked about the research out of Washington State that is entirely funded by Bill Gates.
	There's a lot of people that just kind of write that stuff off as a conspiracy.
	But no, Bill Gates has spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, totally Usurping control over the vaccine industry, over global public health.
	He was a key proponent of the election of the new WHO director.
	And just as much as China influences WHO, I'd say Bill Gates has equal influence over WHO.
	And people seem to forget about that, that this is basically an oligarch technocrat Who is running U.S.
	policy almost on this front, and people need to realize that Bill Gates may not have our best interests in mind either.
	I'm not saying he's like this evil conspiratorial figure, but he's like a pretty weird guy.
	And he, you know, he's in the past talked about implanting people with microchips and vaccines.
	You know, to the average American, that sounds insane and an obvious violation of your constitutional rights.
	But to Bill Gates and his tech buddies, that's like, you know, their next normal proposal.
	Exactly.
	I think that's something to go into deeper because first we had the Imperial College report, and I found it fascinating that this was being cited because people like Peter Hitchens and others pointed out that Imperial had a long history of getting stuff way wrong when it came to pandemics.
	There's a lot of people associated with Imperial College that are climate alarmists.
	So that the idea that they would be apolitical would seem very low.
	The idea that they would be accurate given their history of getting things wrong all the way back to poof and I forget the phrase for it cow disease way back in the early late 1990s early 2000s in the UK.
	and then a history of other things wrong over time whether it was a swine flu or other flus that went through in some cases are wrong by a ratio of 5x 10x i mean just way off in terms of their pandemic projections um the and it seemed as soon as they started collapsing in their reporting all of a sudden we have a new study that's a new model for the white house to use and that's a professor murray out of the university of washington and it's not a co and i
	I found it ironic because Washington was giving us a contrarian interpretation of this virus because it was declining there before it was declining anywhere else in the United States.
	It was tracking the pattern that we had seen around the world that you and I have talked about, that you were talking about, Alex Berenson and other people were talking about.
	Pointing out that in fact this virus, once it gets about 30 days in, starts to collapse no matter what techniques or mitigation tactics are being used.
	Sweden is not shutting down their economy.
	Iran is not shutting down their economy.
	South Korea is not shutting down their economy.
	These other locate, Japan is not shutting down their economy.
	And yet they were seeing either the same decline, either decline in growth in the first place or a definite drop off in growth once it went through the first three weeks and found its most vulnerable, susceptible populations.
	And then we had the wonderful example in terms of being able to experiment and study in the Diamond Princess case that was telling us a very different story in these novels than these models were.
	The models were novels rather than models.
	And in fact, and all of a sudden out of the blue, just when it looks like the president's going to turn the economy back on and make sure civil society is protected from these constitutional threats of little petty tyrants that are running around every little town manager and mayor and sheriff that says, oh, you know, now I get to be the king under the pretext of a pandemic.
	Just when that's going to happen, all of a sudden a new model comes in.
	And the new model predicts still doom and gloom.
	It's just 10% of the doom and gloom that had been predicted a week or two before.
	And then that model ends up being at the University of Washington and connected to Bill Gates.
	Could you talk about the... I mean, the way I always put it is, billionaires don't spend a lot of money to influence politics unless they believe they're going to be influencing politics.
	And someone, and you talk about how much Bill Gates has spent, how much this has been his focus, and the degree to which he's tied to everybody.
	I mean, he has ties to Birx, he's tied to Fauci, he has ties to Imperial College.
	Could you go into some detail about that?
	Yeah, so the new model that Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci seem to both be employing, even though they're not sure if they want to use models, they're still using models right now to direct national policy.
	This new model out of the University of Washington comes from IHME, which was started by Bill Gates, thanks to a monster grant from the Gates Foundation, over $100 million, and that was in 2007.
	And in 2007, he appointed Christopher Murray, the man behind what Dr. Birx calls the Murray Model, as its director.
	And for the past 13 years, Bill Gates and IHME have been kind of pushing Their policy proposals for healthcare through this institution, which is 100% funded by Bill Gates.
	And what's interesting is that before this model really drew a lot of media attention, Bill Gates was out writing op-eds saying how important it was for us to lock down.
	And he was basing that off of the data that was coming out of WHO, which we know wasn't the World Health Organization, which we know hasn't been too reliable.
	And he said, basically, you know, we're going to have to lock down for weeks, if not months, until a vaccine arrives.
	And then next thing you know, this white paper comes out, funded by him, funded by, and the scientists that he totally controls, whose research he funds.
	It says the same thing, like what a, what a miraculous coincidence.
	And I think if you work in data and statistics, this is like in the past, it's like a very common thing that you can use.
	You can nitpick data.
	To come to a policy conclusion very easily.
	And I don't know why the media isn't talking about this more.
	I think some center-right outlets are finally kind of getting in gear on this.
	There was a White House correspondent with Daily Caller that asked about the model yesterday, about why is it so, why has it been so incorrect?
	And why is there no accountability?
	But there wasn't really a good answer to that.
	But I hope that people continue to ask questions, especially of Dr. Birx.
	Who, I don't know if you mentioned this, she sits on the board of the Gates-funded Global Fund, which does a lot of global health research and evaluation, and they're involved in like the AIDS, HIV space, and Dr. Birx knows Christopher Murray, the Gates scientist, and they kind of all just overlap together.
	This is a community very similar to the community that you saw with the RussiaGates stuff.
	These guys all know each other, you know, they all hang out, they all barbecue together.
	So, you know, they have kind of like an inner circle echo chamber ecosystem effect where they kind of just trust each other's research.
	And it all kind of comes back to Bill Gates, unfortunately.
	So we're not getting those outside perspectives from the Oxford model from the Stanford professor that you cited, because he's not, they're not part of that crew.
	I mean, that's the extraordinary thing.
	Anybody that's sort of into the capacity of Bill Gates to monopolize health care policy and to effectively implement and enforce the kind of health care policy we've never done before.
	So can you talk about some of your back when you're looking at this?
	I mean, I was seeing the same thing and was seeing it cited by you.
	Historically, we've never responded or reacted to a virus in this way.
	Not in the Spanish flu, not the Hong Kong flu, not the Asian flu.
	We've never done this.
	We've never shut down.
	We've never said everybody's under mass house arrest.
	We've never said shut down the entire economy.
	We've never shut down all constitutional liberties or core constitutional liberties.
	We've never done this at any level or scale.
	And yet you have a guy because he is behind the financing of so many key people connected to this was able to orchestrate and coordinate a public policy without almost any media skepticism or politician skepticism and even induce someone like President Trump who clearly Gates is not a fan of to follow a a precarious policies in this the uh in terms of how he was able to achieve that and able to get it done can you talk about some of the history the
	That historically, we've never done this before.
	Other governments and countries other than totalitarian ones have not done this before.
	That when you look at the history of viruses, this is a completely ahistorical response.
	And that's why they needed a completely ahistorical set of models to get this response.
	Right.
	It's so unprecedented.
	Even going back to the Middle Ages when they first started quarantining, They were quarantining cities that got real bad, outsiders that wanted to come in.
	There was never this sweeping mandate for the entire nation to lock down.
	And as you referenced earlier, the excuse from the legacy media and from the expert class was, what, are you defying the experts?
	And for, you know, you and I have been saying the whole time, no, there's hundreds of experts that think this stuff is crazy.
	You should really listen to them.
	The lockdown stuff is so unprecedented.
	And somehow we became convinced overnight through a message of fear and panic, you know, this tidal wave, millions are going to die if you don't do this right now, that the entire world became consumed by what amounts to, you could call it pseudoscience, you could call it medical experimentation.
	But it's certainly not based in any kind of like CDC, even World Health guidelines.
	The guidelines that you see from the top European, Asian governments in the world, none of them had advised lockdown before the year 2020 to deal with any pandemic.
	Exactly.
	That's the amazing thing is you go back and look and you find the data, you find the reports, you find the various pandemic predictive responses.
	Even people like Fauci talking about how there's probably going to be one in January.
	And you know, not after not long after President Trump was elected, Fauci is talking about it at Georgetown.
	And that's why I think people needing to connect up Bill Gates to this is important.
	That throughout the entire history of public health, there has never been this reaction by any country or any government in the world, particularly not any government that is a democratic government, to suspend all constitutional liberties and crush their economy.
	The word quarantine is going to increasingly mean for a lot of people, they're going to think that means mass house arrest.
	When constitutionally, by statute, by law, by public health tradition, quarantine was someone who poses a clear and present danger because they're already sick with a communicable disease that there's no other means of remedying or treating that disease except for quarantine until they get better, like the famous case of typhoid Mary in New York.
	That's what it's supposed to be.
	It's never been, hey, let's arrest everybody who doesn't have the disease, who doesn't present any risk, that even if they get the infection, that'll either convert into a disease or anything severe debilitating, like pretty much everybody under the age of 60, you know, 99.8% rate of those people not becoming deathly ill, not needing hospitalizations.
	The degree to which this was completely ahistorical is a critical role because it tells you something completely unprecedented is happening.
	And when you try to unravel how that happened, Bill Gates' names keep popping up over and over and over and over again.
	And in my view, historically, that's not a coincidence.
	And to Bill Gates' credit, this is what he set out to do.
	He wasn't spending hundreds of millions of dollars for people to pat him on the back.
	He was spending hundreds of millions of dollars so he would have influence, so he would be able to Direct the goal of the country and direct how the country was done.
	And the fact that you had the media rushing to him, who last I checked was not an epidemiologist at all or a statistician at all, yet somehow he's an authority on this subject for CNN, while they're mocking anybody who raises questions about the establishment narrative and his connected party narrative, is extraordinary and reveals how dangerous it is and how risky it is.
	I think the president, based on his slightly irritable tone today, may start to be picking up that he has been misled by these people that are connected to Gates and that that may not have been their motivation, may not have been what was either in the country's best interest or definitely in President Trump's best interest.
	So aside from the sort of a historical aspect of this, the other thing that's been fascinating to me has been watching the press try to suppress anybody who raised questions just looking at the data from their own studies or surveys or as you did, either looking at history or their own public statements and prior National Institutes for Health articles either looking at history or their own public statements and prior National Institutes for Health From your experience, how has that come about?
	I mean has it been surprising to you the degree to which so many people in the institutional press Even somebody like Fox doesn't really want to cover this anymore.
	I have friends that are civil rights lawyers that can't even get Fox to print civil rights publications about this.
	How many of them have been so scared and intimidated to question what is really a Bill Gates driven agenda?
	I think it's best explained, I had a social media exchange with someone the other day and we were debating lockdown policy and he said at the end basically that he was done conversing and He can't believe that I'm putting that information out there on the internet because, like, I'll be judged in the future for having some kind of opinion that's different from the rest of the opinion.
	And I think you see this in the institutional legacy press, is that they kind of just piggyback off of each other and they know that they don't want to defy a particular narrative because that could mean trouble.
	Especially, you know, it's one thing, they love sparring with the president.
	But when it comes to putting out a line of communication that is different from the regular past, they tend not to do that.
	I mean, if you see The Washington Post, The New York Times reporting, pretty much identical every single day since the president's been elected.
	You can get one or you don't need subscriptions to both.
	Don't bother.
	Exactly.
	Come back after the break.
	We'll have a few more minutes to discuss with Jordan and to go into how this pandemic continues to be and has proven to be more panic than plague and how the president can take remedial action now to assure his reelection and the country's protection.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're here with Jordan Schachtel.
	You can find him on Twitter, at Jordan Schachtel, S-C-H-A-C-H-T-E-L.
	You can find him at other locations as well.
	He has been one of the top people reporting accurate information, questioning the gatekeeper institutional narrative, and he has turned out right again and again and again, whereas so much of the institutional press has turned out wrong again and again and again, and the narrative of the modelers has turned out wrong again Again and again and again.
	And many of these politicians using it as a pretext to seize power have turned out wrong again and again and again.
	So he's always a good person to follow.
	I followed him for quite a while, but he's been one of the top people willing to broke dissent, willing to challenge conventional wisdom, has been attacked by people on both the left and the right for merely doing so.
	We'll see if I think Raheem Kassam and some other people said they might be willing to debate this week.
	We'll see if they still come on after how the last week and today turned out.
	But back to what do you think the president can do and should do and will do as he sees these modeling data collapse across the country?
	Yeah, the president's a businessman, first and foremost.
	And when he looks at charts that people keep showing him, they tend to be BS.
	I don't think that he's going to hold their trust for too much longer.
	You know, the excuse that the charts are just going to keep adjusting themselves is not going to is not going to fly with him for long.
	And I think you've seen that especially play out with Dr. Tony Fauci, who seems like a decent guy, but doesn't seem like he has a particular handle on how the, you know, the all the negative implications across the board when you're focusing 100% of the energies of the country on the COVID-19 response.
	In addition to giving the president these bogus models that keep not coming true, And advising the president, oh, you know, it's actually two weeks from now or a month from now or where we're dealing with the seasonal flu or, you know, we need to wait till vaccine talking points are all over the place.
	And he's not going to put up with people that he perceives as not BS artists, but people who are just incorrect all the time on the on the data point.
	Exactly.
	I mean, when he was running for election, he made the point repeatedly that while he didn't use the word pointy-headed experts like some old populist did, he was saying basically that in a wide range of contexts.
	That you can't trust the professional class, you can't trust the political class, you can't trust the administrative state, you can't trust the so-called experts because they've been wrong repeatedly, they've been wrong routinely.
	He's witnessed it, he's observed it, he has experienced it in his political and public life.
	And this is basically almost like coup attempt number four to some degree in the way that they misled him, led him to take steps that took away his Trump card of the economy's recovery from this re-election bid, has put him in vulnerable positions that he would not have ever been in had he simply ignored their advice or not received it.
	I think the one thing that many of the people close to the president or who support the president have repeatedly advised him Is that he needs to have better advisors around him.
	That he has gone ahead and gone along with the institutional folks.
	And what we see is those folks are often influenced or persuaded by the sort of corrosive, corrupted culture of academia and the political class.
	That people like Fauci, even if he gets canned, Bill Gates has got a nice gig for him if he wants it.
	So the same with Burks.
	So there's no incentive for these people to really look out for what's best for the country.
	They have no real skin in the game.
	In fact, the only way they could have skin in the game is if they under-reported the expectations of a virus.
	Maybe that could cause them trouble, but nothing else will.
	As long as they're on the side of the billionaires, as long as they're on the side of the institutional press, as long as they're on the side of the culture of government and academic collusion that exists in the world today, where they corrosively corrupt those institutions to not allow and broke independent dissident thought, then they're in a secure position.
	So do you think the president might, when do you think the president will reopen the country and to what degree do you think what he does will influence what governors and mayors do following therewith?
	Yeah, this is so important.
	Projecting solid advice to the state and to local governments, whether it's cities, towns, villages, small rural areas, What got people scared initially was when Birx and Fauci were saying that New York is the case, what's happening now, and in two weeks from whenever they said it, you'd be seeing this in your city.
	And that has proven not to be accurate.
	So what the president needs to do, with his advisors too, is he needs to message to the states that this is your COVID-19 response.
	The circumstances will be different in every state, depending on geography and a million other variables.
	All of these states have their own public health experts, by the way.
	We don't just have a country of Fauci and Dr. Birx.
	So they are more than capable of handling this on their own.
	And the more I think that you decentralize this approach, the better each state will be able to handle it and get the economy back on its feet as soon as possible.
	Well, it's fascinating has been the extraordinary pressure brought on governments across the country and really across the West to have a uniform response of shutdown and suppression of civil liberties to this virus because their fear was what would happen if you have a example like Sweden, like Japan, like South Korea, like other places, like Taiwan.
	Like Iran, when they don't shut down their economy, or in some cases they don't suspend civil liberties, and yet achieve a comparable or better result.
	And what you're talking about is if the president would take action, aggressive action, to encourage decentralization of the response to this.
	He talked about it.
	The Constitution requires federalism.
	Each governor should respond his own way.
	If he'll take the lead in sort of giving a green light that it's okay for the governor of Texas To remove any shutdown, for the governor of Florida to remove any shutdown.
	Big states like that, governed by Republican governors, by people who have presidential and other ambitions and aspirations.
	If they would take the lead, then it would make it harder and harder for your Californians and New Yorks to say that a shutdown is compelled when people can just look to another state within the union achieving comparable or better results in dealing with the virus without such a shutdown and without such a suspension of civil and constitutional liberties.
	So I think you're absolutely right as to what needs to happen, how it needs to happen, and hopefully he will take action on it.
	I think it also exposes the degree to which our public health officials are, to what degree will they be seen in time?
	If this whole thing falls apart like it's already starting to fall apart.
	Yeah, I hope so.
	to which they're the boy who cried wolf, that this will become like the WMDs of Iraq, that this will discredit public health officials in the future because of the unreliability of their models and their panic-inducing approach to how they handle things here.
	What do you think the long-term impact is on them within the court of public opinion?
	Yeah, I hope so.
	I mean, they're trying to set the situation up, unfortunately, where they, as you talked about, they have this ridiculous astronomically high death number, which was one to two million a couple of weeks ago.
	Now it's 100, 200,000.
	Now they're openly talking about, oh, maybe we can get under 100,000.
	But these ridiculous numbers, which they use to advise all these draconian lockdowns, you know, they're going to try to become, be perceived as the winners Because they, you know, saved America.
	But those of us who have been tracking this and tracking the models know that's a garbage argument, because all these models were wrong.
	And a lot of these steps will probably turn out to be entirely unnecessary.
	And they should have never, you know, caused this panic.
	And I think that I hope that the history books are written correctly.
	But as you've seen, There's a lot of clutter sometimes, like especially in foreign policy.
	A lot of people are still under the impression that, you know, these troop surges really turned the corner in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we won over the government that way.
	And I think maybe, you know, 30, 40, 50 years down the line, we'll have some more clarity, but there will be a lot of clutter.
	But hopefully, you know, what I'm focused on is just getting this economy back rolling as soon as possible.
	If Fauci and Birx want to take these wins and screw over the American people in the process, that's unfortunate.
	But I'm just focused on trying to get them out of the way of economic prosperity and social normativity at this point.
	Exactly.
	To stop the suspension of constitutional liberty, stop the shutdown of our economy, get it back going, whatever pretext is necessary to get there.
	People who want to take the win can take the win over the long haul and then can later debate in the public narrative.
	Because I agree with you.
	I think this is going to be a continued discussion in the public narrative.
	Even today you see people on both the left and the right and the establishment saying that any decline is due to the success of the shutdown.
	Even though the problems with that, well, could you identify some of the problems for people in claiming that the shutdown is the reason why the models are completely wrong?
	Yeah, so a lot of people look at Italy and Spain, and you talked about this, the virus has its own track of growth regardless of what we do.
	If we had the worst possible policy and the best possible policy, whatever that is, the virus would eventually stop infecting and killing people.
	I think that the media has directed this approach into its reporting that if we didn't do something exactly some way, that this virus would just wipe out the entirety of the country, which we know is like a ridiculous argument.
	So just because Italy and Spain, which are the worst case possible scenarios, instituted hard lockdown, still running at an enormous death rate that we hope not to see for I don't understand why people think that because people are dying at a slower rate after 30-something days of lockdown, that means lockdown works.
	No, that doesn't prove anything about lockdown.
	And again, it's so important that we understand more about this virus and we prioritize the serology testing that I'm sure you've talked about, so we understand how many people already have had this virus and what And if our mitigation approaches are totally useless, because if 40 to 60 million Americans already have this, you can just basically let people back outside and, you know, the virus is already running its course and there wasn't much we could do.
	So lockdown, you know, it's impossible to prove a negative, but the White House Task Force officials and the media seem convinced that because some countries lockdown And of course they ignore the Taiwan, South Korea, the Sweden ongoing experiment going on right now and a lot of other countries where they didn't lock down and they're seeing more of like a drawn out but lower fatality rate.
	It just doesn't make any sense to me.
	There's no logical basis for assuming because fewer people are dying at a certain rate in the virus's trajectory, it doesn't mean that your policy is working.
	It could mean a million things.
	Exactly.
	There's the counterexamples of other countries seeing a comparable decline or even better outcome without any form of shutdown.
	There's the historical example that during the Spanish flu they found many of the cities across the country were able to quote-unquote flatten the curve without any kind of shutdown, without any mass shutdown or suspension of constitutional liberties.
	We have the contrarian examples currently, both of states within the Union and other countries around the globe.
	And then, for example, the other thing they're doing is the degree to which they're misusing the underlying data.
	So, for example, the death rate can't be based on the shutdown because of the length of time from getting the infection to that infection becoming an illness to that illness becoming severe enough that you need to go to the hospital and the length of time you're in the hospital before you die.
	And when you look at that rate of growth, most of the death should not be declining because they got the infection long before there was a shutdown.
	So if the infectious disease had the contagion rate that they were talking about amongst one of the things you pointed out, I want to get into briefly is the asymptomatic issue that has been misportrayed and misperceived across the media, is that what happens with the virus is it just runs into a wall amongst people who are either going to be asymptomatic and not spread it, not become very ill,
	or people who simply don't get infected like people in Diamond Princess on the or people who simply don't get infected like people in Diamond Princess on the cruise ship, or like what happened in Wuhan where the Chinese government was tracking about 90-95% of the people that were in close continuous contact in confined quarters with someone who had the infection before Still never got the infection.
	It's just the historical nature of viruses.
	It just runs into a wall with large amounts of populations.
	And as you note, the other factor here may be that, in fact, this virus already hit in late November, early December, or through early January.
	People reporting illnesses that are now like the symptoms of this more than the flu back in January and February.
	And that that might explain, and if that's the case, then we're simply locking down for no reason at all.
	In that context and that's where a serology test would be helpful because it would tell us how many people have already had the disease.
	Right now the test only tests people who have it now.
	We don't have tests for whether they already or had it in the past and now already have the antibodies for it.
	And I think all of that sort of provides context that they're going to try to skip over because if we allow the narrative over the, I agree with you right now the immediate impact has to be short term.
	Get the economy back before it's completely crushed.
	Get our civil society back before it's gone.
	Give President Trump a chance at re-election that's going to be out the door if this continues unabated and unmitigated.
	But at the same time, over the long haul, we need to control the historical narrative of what happened here.
	Because if not, they're going to repeat it.
	Every politician now knows you can get Americans to completely forfeit their civil liberties and constitutional protection by simply whispering the word virus.
	Whisper the word virus and all of a sudden what took two centuries to build can be gone in two days.
	Like has happened for two-thirds, 75% of Americans are just fine with this.
	Riding out their friends.
	Riding out their family.
	Riding out their neighbors.
	Riding out random strangers.
	Riding out anyone, oh my goodness, they're walking their dog today without the proper social distancing in place.
	With drones flying overhead and people not thinking, hmm, that's not really a good thing.
	That's like out of a dystopian film than in a modern New York City reality.
	So I think ultimately, long-term, the institutional narrative matters and building up all of this evidence, data, and arguments for it will matter, while the short-term focus has to be fixing the immediate risk that the shutdown to economy and civil society presents.
	On a go-forward basis, do you think that the long-term institutional narrative can be corrected?
	And how much of a danger is it to the country for the future if they learn the lesson of, hey, these tactics work, these tactics are the way to go, and this is the way in which you can just suspend the Constitution overnight if you want to?
	Yeah, one of the biggest fear tactics, and I don't know if this was something based on poor research or if it was deliberate, was this idea you brought up of asymptomatic spread.
	And throughout the history of pandemics, we had never seen a large percentage of asymptomatic spread.
	And what was interesting is that these initial models that we were relying on, the U.S. government, U.K. government, European governments, said that asymptomatic spread was a tremendous, unprecedented problem.
	We've never seen it before in any coronaviruses.
	And this one is different.
	So that was kind of strange to me.
	And I think that that talking point has been used to kind of freak people out and say, you know, this thing is going to come out of nowhere, and you're not even going to see it coming.
	And it got a lot of unfortunately, it really helped push the lockdown stuff and the violation of constitutional rights.
	But when you go back to it, we still have zero proof that asymptomatic spread As opposed to getting the virus, being infected, asymptomatically recovering, you become like the dead end of that chain.
	But what some people are proposing, and there were a couple scientific journals that published stuff about asymptomatic spread, but the data was so thin that they actually revoked it.
	And we're still at the point, because we have such limited forensics and serology testing, that we don't know about asymptomatic spread.
	But the evidence is showing us, basically, that this thing, the way that it spreads in these tight-packed urban environments, and it doesn't spread, you know, in more spread out cities like Los Angeles, where you don't really have so much of a clustered subway metro system, that it really, I really have a hard time believing that we have an asymptomatic spread problem, and that actually we can
	Certainly manage this pandemic if we just went back and played it like the book, like the countries that have had success.
	And that's the most frustrating part, is that it seems to be a scare tactic.
	And even you hear Dr. Birx saying, oh, you know, asymptomatic spread might be like 25% of the problem.
	And she's just kind of like spitballing.
	Trust me, she knows, she knows this stuff.
	And she knows the research and data.
	And again, it's unfortunate to hear these people speaking with authority, because they just don't know But the fact is, when you don't know, and this is an unprecedented hypothesis, you don't lean on the unprecedented hypothesis.
	Humans have been fighting pandemics for quite some time, so for this pandemic to be so much different than all the other pandemics just seems kind of strange to me.
	Exactly.
	I mean, because to explain to people that are watching or listening at home, asymptomatic is someone gets the infection.
	But as the German doctor pointed out, that doesn't mean infection does not equal disease.
	So you may get the infection, but you may be asymptomatic.
	And that should be separated, the good point Jordan has made, from pre-symptomatic.
	Pre-symptomatic are people who have, it's become a disease, but they don't have all the symptoms yet of that disease.
	Asymptomatic are people who never get the disease.
	They just got the infection.
	They just got the virus.
	We are walking around with all kinds of viruses.
	That's where the context for this is fascinating.
	People don't realize the swine flu is one of the flus that we still get every day that we just put into the bucket we call influenza.
	So this lack of information and relevant context has been critical all the way through.
	The media not talking about the base mortality rate.
	And that's what allows hospitals to relabel causes of death as COVID-19 Knowing that's a better and easier way to get refunded from the government for this expenditure that you had in treating this individual and when in fact COVID-19 may not be the real explanation or the real cause of death when they do an excess death study later.
	As you mentioned, the National Institute for Health had a published article where people went into great detail about on every study that measured influenza or influenza-like diseases and looked in particular at whether asymptomatic people can spread it.
	And they said that their view was that asymptomatic people just don't spread influenza, that it's a tiny, tiny percentage, that maybe 1% of people or thereabouts that are asymptomatic might somehow spread it.
	But generally speaking, it simply doesn't happen.
	And yet this narrative built up quickly.
	I mean, you had the Georgia governor getting lambasted because he's like, oh, I discovered the asymptomatic people may spread it.
	Well, he may be wrong now.
	In fact, there's no evidence of asymptomatic spread of any substantial scale beyond past flus or in comparison to past flus.
	And that was the entire pretext for all of these models.
	Because, I mean, like you've been mentioning, the Imperial College guy refuses to disclose his code behind his model.
	But the assumptions behind these models, the only thing that could justify this being treated differently than any past flu.
	We've had severe flus.
	The Hong Kong flu was a severe flu.
	The Asian flu was a severe flu.
	Spanish flu was particularly a severe flu.
	But we've never dealt with them in this way and the excuse was that this was worse than all of them.
	That this was the equivalent of the second coming of the bubonic plague.
	It was going to infect 70, 80, 90 percent of the country.
	It was going to do it within months.
	We were going to have 2 million dead within 60 to 90 days.
	That was the estimation coming out.
	People like David K. Johnson, who used to work for the New York Times, was saying it was going to be five and a half million dead within five months.
	They were saying a million a month dead, according to the various estimates that were being put out there.
	And the low end was maybe only 50,000 a month dead.
	And yet now it's turned out there may not even be 50,000 total dead in the United States.
	And the only thing that I can think of that could explain the modeling error is that they put in data that presumed an extraordinary rate of either infection and an extraordinary rate of the asymptomatic people spreading it.
	Which in the two are probably interrelated.
	And I think you're right about that.
	I think they got that wrong.
	And hopefully people can become more self-educated and self-informed about how this process works.
	And the way ordinary people over time have figured out a way to figure out whether our politicians are lying to us to get us into war, whether our politicians are lying to us when they're trying to bail out Wall Street.
	People need to learn as much as they can about the terminology of this area.
	You don't have to become a big expert in it.
	You can become just enough of an expert, like a lawyer has to, to cross-examine an expert at trial and become self-informed and self-educated in this process.
	As one last question, Jordan, what would you say to people out there that they can do, what action they can take to try to reverse the public policy course we currently face?
	Yeah, I think it starts with educating your local officials, presenting them, you know, the data from Professor Ioannidis or the Oxford study.
	Just, you know, insert these little, you know, pieces of information into their minds, this counter narrative.
	And I think, I hope that the White House guidance will be completely different come next week.
	And you'll start to see if citizens start to petition their government, because unfortunately, I think the unemployment numbers this week are going to be absolutely shocking again.
	And that'll really push people towards, hey, we want to open the heck up.
	You know, this is getting ridiculous.
	And I think what people can do is continue to put pressure on their local officials, state officials, federal officials, if you know them, that you are demanding you want better answers.
	You see the data.
	The data is not making sense.
	There's hundreds, if not thousands, of qualified scientists who have said this is not the right approach and keep presenting this information.
	A lot of it is easily available online.
	You know, the most renowned institutions in the world at Oxford, Carnegie Mellon, I see some stuff at the University of Pittsburgh now.
	There's a lot of solid data.
	And it's up to citizens to also, as you said, you can follow the numbers too.
	You can check out these models and see that the stuff isn't adding up.
	You don't need to be an epidemiologist or a calculus pro to follow these models.
	They're really straightforward.
	Anyone can follow them.
	And you can just simply ask your officials, why do you keep relying on this stuff?
	If it continues to be false information, like, is this the best approach?
	And just continue to put pressure on them.
	Demand better from these aspiring tyrants.
	The mayor of Chicago got her hair cut yesterday or today, and she said, oh, you know, my barber wore a mask.
	Why can't we wear masks and get hair cut with our barbers?
	You know, this is getting so absurd.
	Do you think these local officials aren't nearly as smart as they think they are?
	And they don't realize that the American people are much more qualified We can handle this.
	We can be responsible for social distancing.
	This republic was conceived in liberty, not conceived in a total nanny state and this needs to stop as soon as possible.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks, Jordan, for being on.
	Anybody can follow him at Jordan Schachtel on Twitter, an important repository and source of information across the board as it relates to this.
	And I encourage you to it.
	If you want to be part of the self-education participation process, the process of education and engagement in the public policy process, one place you can start is by following him on social media and by engaging your political officials and public officials to help make the meaningful change that is necessary.
	So thanks, Jordan, for being with us.
	Thanks for having me on, appreciate it.
	Absolutely.
	We live in an environment where what Jordan was talking about is not all that controversial.
	In fact, if you go through, you can find it in the New York Times.
	David Katz, president of the True Health Institute, founding director of the Yale Griffin Prevention Research Center.
	Now apparently he doesn't necessarily have a lot of backing from Bill Gates, so he could write, is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
	He talks about the necessity of a precision of a surgical strike.
	Methodically targeting the most vulnerable populations for protection.
	Then he talks about how the virus is caused by viral particles transmitted by coughing and sneezing and in the air and so in particular the most precarious place for someone to be for protection against the virus is to be in close continuous contact in confined quarters.
	He says immunity occurs when our immune system has developed antibodies against a germ.
	either naturally and more commonly naturally, or as a result of a vaccine.
	What they're not telling you is that even flu vaccines have a very low success rate in general.
	Even today, the flu shot has limited success.
	And in particular, they've had limited success with vaccines against coronavirus.
	So vaccines often are simply not the answer.
	And yet it's the only answer that Bill Gates is recommending.
	Whereas the common answer to various forms of influenza has been and remains herd immunity.
	You get it, you're asymptomatic, you don't get it again, you don't spread it.
	The immune system's response is so robust that the invading germ is eradicated before symptomatic disease can develop.
	That's the most effective means of preventing transmission.
	He talks about how we know this.
	He talks about how 99% of active cases in the general population amongst those who are symptomatic are mild and do not require detailed medical treatment.
	He talks about the Diamond Princess cruise ship example.
	He talks about how it's only the elderly with significant chronic illnesses that are at real risk.
	So what we should have is a policy that preferentially protects the medically frail.
	He talks about the consequences of a public health policy that goes in any other direction is going to cause more harm than good.
	When we come back in the bottom half of the hour, we want to hear from you, the jury.
	So call in at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	Or if you're calling internationally, use your country's area code and call 1-512-646-1776. That's 1-512-646-1776.
	We would like to thank our sponsor for this show.
	Because while YouTube has been demonetizing people for raising any questions, the algorithms on Google and social media suppress anybody who raises questions, who has challenged at all these big models, or anybody else, InfoWars has been one of the key places that has been willing to...
	provide a platform of independent dissident thought.
	So go to InfoWarsStore.com, a wide range of products that can serve all of your needs, and you should get them now while you still can, before the next stage of the shutdown precludes you from even purchasing these products.
	So go to InfoWarsStore.com, and you can help change the world today.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	So now and from this section, we're going to listen to you and hear from you and hopefully try to have your question within a minute so we can get to as many people as possible.
	We appreciate your participation.
	Just as we appreciate your support of our sponsor, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can go and get a wide range of products and you should get them now before they sell out or get them now before the government tells you you can't buy them anymore or can't have them delivered to your home during this pandemic panic.
	This panic-demic that we are facing currently by a lot of our local politicians across the country, who may even prohibit people from going to church on Easter Sunday.
	Prohibit people from getting communion on Easter Sunday.
	That's the degree to it.
	So go to Infowarsstore.com.
	A wide range of products are back in stock.
	Some products are near selling out, but you still have the opportunity to get them.
	The store is consistently giving broad discounts in order to make sure it's affordable and accessible to you during this period of time.
	So I appreciate your participation and support in that way.
	So let's go to the jury and the calls and let's first start out with Eileen from San Francisco.
	Hi, how are you?
	Very good.
	Happy to have you on.
	Thanks.
	I just wanted to suggest that we use this time, you know, maybe Use the platform, InfoWars platform, to implement a call to action.
	Maybe suggest that everybody call the White House on a specific day or a couple days, you know, to voice their support for opening up the economy.
	Or, you know, and also Congress and Senate and, you know, just kind of take some action.
	And also wondering about, you know, are there any lawsuits being filed to defend the Constitution and our liberty?
	Is it, you know, maybe that would be another avenue for Trying to lift this shutdown.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks for calling.
	I think the idea of a call to action is a good idea.
	We should coordinate that and find a way to make sure the message gets out there.
	The president does pay attention to what his base does, and it's been the only counterweight to the establishment institutional narrative, as what Eric Weinstein calls the gatekeeper institutional narrative, that has tried to keep out dissident and independent opinions, questioning and challenging these responses, these policy responses that feel more like panic than anything else.
	In response to this pandemic.
	And as to your second question is to lawsuits.
	You can go to FreeAmericaLawCenter.com, BarnesLawLLP.com.
	We are bringing legal actions.
	We're bringing legal actions and lawsuits all across the country.
	Looking at the cases that are the best potential cases to establish the most important and valuable precedent.
	And we are going to be doing that, doing it on a contingency basis or civil rights basis to make it affordable and accessible to people because of how critical, essential and fundamental these rights are.
	If we don't act now, then there'll be no means to defend against them in the future.
	No means to prevent it from reoccurring, from repeating.
	And that's why lawyers across the country have volunteered to assist him and help with this process, which is fantastic, and we appreciate that.
	If there's any other lawyers out there that want to help, that's great.
	The more the merrier when it comes to challenging and contesting what's been happening by our institutional politicians who have used this as a pretext and what may become a preamble for the suspension of constitutional liberties across the country.
	So thanks.
	Thanks for your question, and I hope we were able to answer that, at least in part.
	Let's go to George in Connecticut.
	Hi there.
	I have a situation where I'm in an elderly housing project, and they just made up such ridiculous rules.
	They say you can't go into the common areas, but we now have a rule that we no longer can drop off checks.
	We have to do it on computer, and the computer is in the common area.
	And some of these people are nearly 100 years old, so they certainly don't have smartphones.
	And it looks like the people down in the office who made these rules don't have any smart brains.
	But anyway, how does one file a suit or what grounds are best to look for for filing a suit against, not the organization here, but the people who basically passed this along through HUD and other people through the state who have freaked everybody out?
	Because I'd like to do something about this.
	I mean, I'm not one of these people who just sit on this stuff.
	And let it ride.
	Being my mother was in Nazi Germany as an American and helped people get across borders.
	And after the war, she confronted Eisenhower face-on when he wanted to starve kids that were starving to death and wanted to starve all the Germans, kids that were orphans.
	So I come up from a family that always bucks the kids.
	Well, that's important.
	I mean, basically, the way we're looking at all of these suits, and the most effective way generally, is if there's any state actor involved, particularly at the state or local or county or city level, then the best way to bring a legal challenge to that is under Section 1983 of Title 42.
	So they're loosely called 42 U.S.C.
	1983 claims.
	So they're loosely called 42 USC 1983 claims.
	And they're loosely or colloquially called civil rights claims.
	So what's happened is anytime your constitutional rights have been infringed upon or limited, and this includes the right of free association, the right of free expression, the right of religious expression, the right to petition the government, all of which are protected under the First Amendment.
	Then your right to purchase and own a gun for your self-defense under the Second Amendment.
	Your right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
	your right to property.
	Without without it being taken without just compensation or in violation of due process principles under the Fifth Amendment and the right to travel which is protected under the privilege and immunity the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution itself before you even get to the Bill of Rights.
	And there's a range of decisions that have enforced the right to travel including this is why for example there's limits on what durational residency requirements a state can impose in cases of voter registration for participation in an election.
	So the 42 USC 1983 is the best way to go.
	People can email and send in the contact.
	Go to the website either BarnesLawLLP.com or go to FreeAmericaLawCenter.com Send in information and we're trying to act as a clearinghouse for as many people as possible to make sure they get the legal representation they need to challenge and contest these extraordinary scope and perilous scope of constitutional infringement that's taking place across the country in every conceivable context.
	And it's ordinary people like you, George, taking action that makes the difference.
	It's you engaging in the public debate, you engaging in public participation, including where and when necessary, engaging in the court of actual law as well as the court of public opinion that can make the ultimate difference.
	It's the only real restraint and real restriction on governmental abuse that has ever been established anywhere but in America too.
	So thanks for calling and I hope we were able to give you a satisfactory answer.
	Let's go to Dennis in Virginia.
	Hey, Mr. Barnes.
	I've joined your Evening Program very much, and I've learned a lot from it.
	First, I just want to say, I think the computer models that they're using for the virus are probably about the same as the hurricane models.
	You know, where they just grab a handful of spaghetti and throw it up against the wall?
	Yeah.
	That's what you get.
	But my question was, do countries of the world have any legal recourse, you know, for financial damages, you know, from China?
	I know we have a lot of issues here in this country, but outside of this country, or even in this country, against China, is there any legal options available?
	Yes, so there's a couple of different components that are possible.
	The president is currently considering bringing a legal action against China, potentially in the World Trade Organization or similar body, for its hoarding of medical supplies during this time period and for other actions that has taken place.
	There is a class action suit that has been filed in Nevada and is being contemplated in other states, but for basically everybody across the country.
	That challenges whether or not China's actions constitute a tort within the United States and whether or not they're immune from that tort or exempt from immunity based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
	And basically what that provides is that if they're engaged in commercial activity, foreign governments can be sued here in the United States.
	Right now they can otherwise not be sued.
	There is the possibility of legislative action at the congressional level where they could change that.
	They could specifically authorize, like they have in terrorism and other contexts, they could authorize lawsuits directly against foreign governments for their illicit activities that may have spread a virus here in the United States.
	And there's no question there's evidence to support that because There's reason to believe that China was aware in November, as early as November, that they had a virus problem, that they suppressed that information by censoring the whistleblowers, by pressuring whistleblowers to retract or recant, by keeping that information from going public.
	Even as of January 14th, they had misled the World Health Organization to tell the world that in fact this wasn't even a communicable disease between people, at a time when it was being communicated between people.
	Not only that, they sent tens of thousands of people out of Wuhan, who they knew had this epidemic taking place, around the world, knowing it would spread around the world.
	And knowing that, what did they start doing around the exact same time period?
	They started to hoard critical medical supplies, like masks, that would be needed or necessary to defeat or deal with this virus.
	So clearly they behaved in an outrageous form and fashion, and that should be grounds to bring legal suit, but for the various immunities that Congress has given all the foreign governments.
	In fact, the very idea of sovereign immunity derives from a mistaken notion that the king can do no wrong.
	It comes from the idea that the King is God.
	And because God can do no wrong, then the King can do no wrong.
	How can that be a reasonable concept in a democratic government, where we don't recognize anybody as being God's anointed official to govern us?
	So the very notion of sovereign immunity has always been a questionable notion in American law, given the principles of the American Revolution, but the hurdle is still courts' unwillingness to contest it or challenge it, and in many circumstances, actually inventing it or creating it out of whole cloth themselves.
	That's why I'm currently involved in the Covington case where we're fighting Senator Elizabeth Warren, who claims that getting elected to Congress is a license to libel.
	That, in fact, she can never be sued for libel based on another form of sovereign immunity.
	That's the biggest obstacle to holding China responsible for their extraordinarily bad acts in the context of this virus that unnecessarily spread by their own misleading conduct.
	Now, in fact, another key factor in their potential liability, and maybe why they've pushed back so aggressively on anybody who raised questions about whether this virus had any man-made component, either in its creation or in its spread, is because if a lab was involved, that can be considered commercial activity.
	And if it's considered commercial activity, then they are not immune under United States law for a foreign government can be sued and held liable for something they do that causes harm when they're engaged in commercial activity.
	In other words, economic activity.
	And one way to interpret the labs activity is that it was for the purposes of monetizing potential vaccines to various viruses to personally profit various companies connected to and part of the Chinese government.
	And in that context, they can be sued in the United States.
	That is the premise behind the class action lawsuit that has already been filed against them.
	And it will be key as to whether what the facts are and what they will ultimately prove.
	But we shouldn't even have to be here in that situation at all but for the mistaken application of sovereign immunity and ask yourself why is Congress passing special laws to allow foreign governments to get away with effectively crimes against humanity in our own society?
	It raises a question as to who they are really being loyal to.
	So thanks for your question and hope that was able to provide part of an answer.
	Next let's go to Ken in South Carolina.
	It's an honor, sir.
	In South Carolina, they couldn't get us to panic over the last two months and the public aren't at large are not buying the panicdemic.
	So they shut down our water access by shutting all boat ramps.
	The governor did last after last two weekends ago.
	Then when people civilly disobeyed that for about a week, they've moved forward and they're ordering us to stay home as of 5pm tomorrow.
	Now, As a Christian minister, I'd plan to offer communion on the beach to disobey his beach order that was illegitimate, as well as the exercise of our freedom of assembly.
	But my question for you is, what timely federal court protection or recourse might we have if we practice civil disobedience by peaceably assembling and exercising our God-given rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of religion?
	Yes sir, there's two different ways to do that.
	One is to file a civil rights suit in the courts in South Carolina in advance and that would be under section, that would be under a 42 U.S.C.
	1983 suit and you can seek three kinds of relief.
	One is declaratory relief that protects you or should protect you against police action.
	The second would be emergency injunctive relief to prevent them from interfering with or impairing the religious proceeding.
	And the third would be for any kind of monetary recovery or other recovery if they actually cause and inflict the harm if there was no injunction issued.
	So those are the three different options.
	You have to file the suit.
	You have to ask for what's called a temporary restraining order or also a preliminary injunction.
	Sometimes you can get a temporary restraining order that can last for a few days before the preliminary injunction hearing is held.
	And we are looking at cases in South Carolina.
	In my view, what that order does, if it is as you described, that it clearly violates your First Amendment rights.
	Because you have a right to free religious expression.
	You have a right to peaceable assembly amongst any co-religious or politically affiliated individuals for your own purposes.
	And of course a right to travel in general.
	So the, but particularly those two rights of religious expression and peaceable assembly are being infringed upon by an order that does that.
	And the other part of the constitutional analysis, and we've been drafting complaints, drafting briefs, looking at legal research to make this happen.
	That's why I also recommend people go to Infowarsstore.com.
	They've been a key supporter of making this happen in the first place to protect people's rights all across the country.
	Is what's happening is when you legally research it, you discover that the main constitutional principle in play here becomes a standard that's called strict scrutiny.
	So when there is an infringement on your constitutional rights or your liberties, the government has to show two things in order to justify that infringement.
	First, they have to show that there's a compelling public interest behind the policy that they've announced.
	But also, and very importantly, the second one is that the remedy, the policy that they've chosen is narrowly tailored, is necessarily narrowly tailored to that compelling public interest.
	There has to be a core relationship between the two.
	So in this context, for example, they need to be able to show that prohibiting any form of public religious gathering It serves a compelling public interest, which presumably they'll say the compelling public interest is the potentially debilitating nature of the disease or death from the disease.
	But they have to explain how their means of doing so, this complete shutdown of religious expression, this complete shutdown of peaceable public assembly, is somehow necessarily and narrowly tailored to the protection of people's health.
	And the problem there is, first of all, the only data that any of these politicians have cited at the local level has been from various political activists who pushed out even worse models than the models the White House was relying upon, even worse models than some of the governors and world leaders were relying upon.
	So first of all, they don't have the basis to presume there's a degree of risk of harm to any set of individuals already from the virus.
	Secondly, there's no evidence that a complete prohibition on having communion on Easter Sunday is somehow narrowly tailored and necessarily tailored.
	To that public interest.
	There's simply no affiliation.
	That is not a narrowly tailored remedy at all.
	That's the definition of an overly extended, too broad, reflective interest.
	In fact, here, you don't just have to take my word for it.
	You don't have to take your own common sense for it.
	You don't have to take all the publicly available information and data for it.
	That was, in fact, the precise opinion of the writer in the New York Times.
	The public health official at Yale will be one of the people that we will be citing in the lawsuits to bring.
	He describes over and over again how this is a tactic that he considers too broad, too collateral, going to cause too much harm unnecessarily, because basically he calls it like carpet bombing.
	Rather than target bombing.
	And so this is a precise definition of something that's not narrowly tailored.
	For example, they could, like the state of Texas has, said you can't interfere with religious expression, that religious expression and free association for religious purposes is an essential activity by definition under the Constitution, as protected in many states under their state constitution, as well as the United States Constitution.
	And the way in fact you can protect that and make sure that it has limited public health consequences is you can require some degree or recommend some degree of social distancing at the church or in the religious gathering.
	For example, you can say, let's have it out on the beach and have it public.
	Because out on the beach and if it's public may present less risk than if in a closed confined quarters.
	Maybe have windows open or doors open if it's conducted inside a church.
	Maybe have people sit at a reasonable distance from one another.
	There's ways in which the in fact the Texas Attorney General went through all these steps that could easily accommodate any public health need.
	Without any degree of imposition of any severe kind on the religious expression in public assembly for church purposes.
	There are many people for whom physical communion is critical and essential as part of their religious expression.
	In fact, today, there's people who want the last rites from their minister, or want to be able to pray when they're on the deathbed, who are being denied that opportunity by various hospitals across the country.
	We are seeing a scale, scope and size of constitutional liberty infringement that has never happened in the history of this country.
	We have never done anything like this.
	We've never done anything close to anything like this.
	So thanks for your call.
	You're absolutely right.
	There needs to be remedy taken.
	There needs to be steps taken.
	Our hope was that the local politicians and the rest would start to step back from this extraordinary infringement.
	And instead, they keep moving forward, marching forward in this infringement and violation.
	We are a far ways away from how this country was founded.
	And let's just look at an example of that.
	How something like simply using the flag could be a symbol of rallying for liberty rather than willingly sacrificing that as we do today.
	Let's look at video number seven.
	Let's look at video number seven.
	Let's look at video number seven.
	Let's look at video number seven.
	Let's look at video number seven.
	It used to be a source of pride.
	It used to be a definition of what it was to be an American.
	Just look at this popular car commercial just a few years ago, when freedom is what it meant to be an American, not fear, which is what the fear porn promoters of the establishment press want you to believe.
	Let's look at video number eight.
	Let's look at video number eight.
	Let's look at video number eight.
	Cars and freedom.
	Things America got right.
	Freedom.
	That used to be the definition of who we are as a people, who we are as a country.
	It is the legacy that our forebears gave.
	And now, in the name of protecting people who willingly sacrificed their lives, sacrificed their liberties for centuries and generations, We're supposed to now live in fear and forfeit that freedom that it took two centuries to build, two centuries to create, two centuries to store up.
	And we're supposed to forfeit it in fear overnight because people decided to propagate a model that was backed by a billionaire who had questionable motivations.
	Tonight's debate and discussion was resolved that the Bill Gates-backed models misled the President of the United States, misled America into this fear-driven society that forfeited constitutional liberty and suspended our economy, and shut it down for millions of Americans risking their futures and their lives and their fortunes in the process.

▲