All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes
01:47:05
20200407_Tue_Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- British are coming, the big airman! - You are about to be part of the great debate. - And one small plan to land.
America first.
Welcome to another edition of American Countdown.
Tonight, resolve that censorship amidst this record-setting shutdown of our economy, amidst this unprecedented suppression of civil liberties, censorship, whether by the state or by big tech, threatens not only our core liberties, but also threatens the re-election of President Trump.
We should examine this in detail, particularly in a time period in which merely discussing 5G suddenly is something that must be censored from the Internet, from Big Tech to YouTube.
Why can't we decide what questions should be answered?
Why can't we decide what is true and what is not?
Why shouldn't these questions about whether or not 5G poses any kind of risk of health be one that we examine and determine for our own selves?
Why should that information be suppressed from the public Internet or from the public space or from the public square?
In the same vein, increasingly simply raising questions about Bill Gates and his role in this policy response to the pandemic and what his potential motivations may be also appears to be something that you're not supposed to discuss, that increasingly is censored from the court of public opinion, not only by the gatekeepers of the institutional narrative from the political establishment and the medical establishment,
But also just being suppressed and censored across the board from even being viewable in places like YouTube and other locations.
YouTube now owned by Google, controlling the algorithm that has a near monopoly on public searches for public information in today's world, particularly in the West.
So let's look in greater detail at sort of the threat and the risk that is really being posed, whether the censorship is an appropriate answer to that risk, particularly amidst this extraordinary shutdown and suppression of civil liberties.
In fact, these days, I'm just waiting for some government to release a video kind of like this one in dealing with the virus.
This is not a test.
This is your biohazard warning system.
Due to the new COVID-19 virus, the following measures come into effect.
We are announcing the start of the immediately effective nationwide quarantine, which has been officially approved by the United States government.
Commencing at the siren, leaving your own household, even for medical or everyday errands, will be a criminal offense and will be punished with state-forced quarantine and, depending on the severity of the quarantine violation, death.
Visits to relatives, neighbors or friends will be illegal during this time.
No one has been granted immunity from the quarantine.
No citizen or group will be exempt.
All emergency services will be suspended until further notice and cannot be reached.
Every household will receive a monthly data volume of 400 megabytes in order to keep the network load under control.
There is currently no time limit for these measures.
We hope for yourself and your family to be prepared for the worst.
Blessed be our new founding fathers and America, a nation reborn.
May God be with you all.
May God be with you all.
May God be with you all.
May God be with you all.
Just to give an example.
So the story is that 5G from various media has no link to COVID-19 and doesn't pose any health risk.
So why then is Facebook, YouTube and everyone taking down posts and suppressing videos related to it?
If it's not accurate, you can meet inaccurate information with accurate information, not the suppression of dissident or independent views.
Similarly, YouTube tightens rules after David Ickey 5G interview.
And all he talked about in that context was whether or not 5G technology could have any role in impacting people's health concerning the pandemic.
Why shouldn't that be up to the public discussion and the public debate and the public dialogue?
If he's wrong, then he can be questioned, challenged, and his views contested in the public square, not suppressed and censored from the public square.
But it wasn't the only view that was of concern to our big tech gatekeepers.
It was also his concerns about Bill Gates and Bill Gates's role in pushing the policy response to this pandemic.
Somehow that too is something that must be censored, that must be kept from the public, that the public must be made unaware of.
At the same time that this is happening, There is increasing acknowledgement that there's someone who profits beyond Bill Gates' political agenda profiting, and if we look at who profits from this policy response to this pandemic, also it appears that China increasingly is profiting.
As this one headline reports, China is emerging from the coronavirus crisis as an even more powerful opponent.
Indeed, because China has restarted its economy while the West has shut theirs down, the Chinese economy looks likely to recover much more rapidly than that in the West and use it to its advantage to replace the United States in a range of supply chains, potentially developing a market monopoly of the kind they artificially created by buying up medical supplies when they knew the virus was about to spread to the rest of the world.
Consequently, President Trump is taking remedial action and calling them out and the World Health Organization.
It's relevant in this context as we talk about the issues about 5G, we talk about the issues of Bill Gates, we talk about these issues that suddenly are subject to censorship by the various big tech and institutional narrative gatekeepers.
Remember that it was the same gatekeepers that told us that masks wouldn't be helpful and could be bad for us.
That also told us that anti-malarial drugs couldn't possibly be helpful in the treatment of this particular virus.
And that also had advised in different contexts that you not only can't discuss certain sources and you couldn't discuss whether the World Health Organization was giving Honest and accurate information when all the way back to January, mid-January, it was still repeating Chinese lies about what was taking place.
But also, just as you couldn't ask about masks, and you couldn't ask about whether malarial drugs could help for this virus, you couldn't ask about whether the models were right.
Models that are widely being recognized as being completely false.
Models that consistently have deep ties to Bill Gates.
Indeed, increasingly it appears that Bill Gates thinks he's the president more so than President Trump.
Indeed, if we, President Trump is increasingly aware of this.
As he said today, they got it wrong talking about the World Health Organization, saying that they're China-centric and need to be held responsible and he's going to look at defunding them moving forward because of the ways in which they have simply been a propagation arm of the Chinese government rather than concerned with public health.
Additional articles today say they're still not sure whether masks work or not.
That's the inconsistent and contradictory information we're still receiving to this day.
There was early criticism, not just of talking about masks, not just of talking about malarial drugs, not just questioning the models.
But in addition, questioned that there was all this range of attack about anybody suggesting that essential oils or other forms of alternative health treatment could work to improve your health in general during this time period.
There was widespread attempts to censor that, even efforts by various state governments to try to prosecute people who simply raised it as a possible means of improving your public health or your personal health.
Even though there's articles like this one published in Medline, in the medical journals available on Medline, essential oils as antimicrobial agents.
And it goes into detail about how many exhibit these properties which can be important in the fields of science and industry including medicine.
That they seem to be a potential alternative to synthetic compounds, especially because of the resistance that has been increasingly developed by pathogenic microorganisms.
So we have medical information that said, hey, maybe masks could be good.
Maybe these malarial drugs could be good.
Maybe these models are bad.
Maybe there's issues to be raised with Bill Gates or 5G.
And now we see this continuous campaign of censorship and suppression of independent information from independent sources trying to limit and constrict the public square to only that approved by the big tech and big media gatekeepers.
Well, let's talk a little bit more about Bill Gates and how he might profit from this political response to the pandemic.
Before Bill Gates got involved, before the people that model and that did the models who are deeply tied to Bill Gates got involved, people like Fauci and others suggested that we shouldn't overreact to this pandemic.
After he got involved, all of a sudden they became the lead policy makers for overreacting to this pandemic.
Well, what might be part of the agenda?
Bill Gates has long been obsessed with overpopulation.
He decided his solution to overpopulation relates to vaccines, for whatever reason.
He has a range of explanations he has for that.
But one of the things that he has been involved in, and the Gates Foundation has been involved in, is a digital certificate to identify who received a particular vaccine.
And now he's talking about using this virus as a pretext in order to justify not only his message of vaccines, but also his solution of digital vaccines.
And what is that?
Well, it goes to an organization called ID2020, which talked about how you could enforce Global IDs through a digital ID and that digital identification can be put into the skin and probably the best pretext to get it to be popular around the world is what?
Immunization.
Immunization, an entry point for digital identity.
This is actually being promoted by the ID2020 organization.
You can review their article for yourself.
Another organization whose ideas are backed by Bill Gates.
It's not the only method.
We have an article that's been in the bioengineering space that's talking about what some people you may have seen refer to it as quantum tattoos.
They call them quantum dots.
And what are they?
They're delivered to the skin by microneedle patches through vaccination.
And they are dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light, emitting microparticles to the skin.
They're invisible to the eye, so you may not even know it's there.
But they can be imaged using modified smartphones.
And by co-delivering a vaccine would be the easiest mechanism to basically chip the planet.
As Zero Hedge put up an article today, goes into detail about Bill Gates' role in pushing the pandemic and his various policy solutions that he has long patronized and long pushed for, is now that Bill Gates just revealed a real reason behind the lockdowns, talking about how Gates is using this agenda to pursue his particular policy objectives, even though nobody's ever elected Bill Gates president and nobody's ever approved of any of these policies after a thorough and full debate.
Indeed, if we go back and look at Bill Gates, Bill Gates has been obsessed with this topic for a long time.
And it's a reminder of the movie Inferno.
And you don't have to conclude that Bill Gates is the character from Inferno, but what Inferno was forecasting or predicting was that this mindset was a dangerous mindset within some of the political classes and the billionaires that believe they should run the world rather than you and I.
We're going to look at three exhibits of that from the film.
The film was based on a Dan Brown novel, who also wrote The Da Vinci Code, also wrote Angels and Demons.
He also wrote about the NSA's activities years and years ago.
He was a teacher at Exeter back in the day, so he has sort of insight and information that others don't have.
So often what is described as fiction often has a core of truth to it.
It's what makes the fiction credible.
It's what makes it authentic.
No less than Tom Hanks, of course, was involved in these films, which is sort of ironic given the current situation.
But let's first look at video number three and get some background as to what kind of threat could be present by billionaires deciding they should dictate public policy, especially when they become obsessed with overpopulation.
It appears you're out of options.
Tell me about the threat.
Mana's Inferno.
Professor Langdon, we need your help.
Three days ago, a man killed himself.
We think it was part of something much bigger.
There was a package in his pocket.
And what was it?
It's Dante's Inferno.
Dante defined our modern conception of hell 700 years ago.
But these circles of hell have been rearranged.
Why Dante?
Why this map of hell?
Dante.
Dante's death mask.
Yes!
We've got to get to Florence.
I need access to the Dante mask.
The Dante mask is no longer here.
It was stolen.
Here's the security footage.
Professor?
That looks like you.
I have no memory of taking that mask.
You did.
I just saw you.
I want to know what I'm involved with.
Why was someone shooting at you?
Everything is out of focus.
Professor, you are having visions, aren't you?
The people behind this would do anything to protect the truth.
You have no idea what they're capable of.
This is what I have been seeing.
Look, look, look.
This is not in the original painting.
Here's another one.
It's a prophecy.
Oh my God.
Dante's Inferno isn't fiction.
It's a prophecy.
Someone created a plague.
Our population is spiraling out of control.
Inferno is the cure.
They're gonna wipe out half the world's population unless we find this virus.
They left a trail.
You won't be able to trust your own thoughts for a while.
Human lives are at stake.
If a plague exists, you know what governments will do to get it.
The Professor has become a liability.
Go, go, let's get him!
Here, here!
There's always a way out.
It's nice to have you back, Professor.
If this plague is real... Then we only have 48 hours to stop an extinction-level event.
I will do everything I can to find it.
And what is the premise or predicate behind the concern of the character in that film?
It's an obsession over overpopulation.
An obsession that can haunt the minds of those who believe they should have more power over the future of our country than those who are elected to do so.
So let's look at video clip number two, where the character explains why he's obsessed and why he's driven to do what he ultimately does, which is attempt to try to kill half the world in the name of saving the population.
Let's look at clip number two.
It took the Earth's population 100,000 years to reach a billion people.
And then just 100 more to reach 2 billion.
And only 50 years to double again to 4 billion people in 1970.
We're nearly at 8 billion now.
It's called exponential doubling.
And it is a bitch!
So, how far along are we?
Bartlett, This gives the example of a beaker with a single bacterium in it, one that divides and doubles every minute.
If you place the first bacterium into the beaker at 11 o'clock, and it's completely full by 12, at what time is the beaker still only half full?
full 11:59 that's what time it is for us in 40 years 32 billion people will fight to survive They'll fail.
11.59.
We're a minute to midnight.
Every single global ill that plagues the Earth can be traced back to human overpopulation.
But serious birth control measures, they don't stand a chance.
Outrageous!
Violation of my rights!
Invasion of my privacy!
Don't tell me what to do!
And still, we keep attacking our own environment.
We clear cut.
We dump.
We consume.
We destroy.
Half the animal variants on Earth have vanished in the past 40 years.
They're done.
Finished.
Not coming back.
Still, we keep going.
There have been five major extinctions in the Earth's history.
And unless we take bold, immediate action, the sixth extinction will be our own.
Looks like he's got a lot of followers.
Yeah, from all over the world.
Who else has been obsessed with overpopulation for the last decade or so?
And it's the reason why we should always keep the public square open to questions, to debate, to public dialogue.
It's not to say that necessarily that Bill Gates is necessarily a character.
He may not be a bad character at all.
He may have completely innocent intentions.
But that should be for the public debate and public dialogue to take place.
And we shouldn't have billionaires that are not elected to any office dictating more of our public policy than our elected officials are.
Nor should we allow them to encourage and incentivize policies that either encourage censorship, the suppression of our civil liberties, or the shutdown of our public economy.
Let's talk about and look at how Bill Gates has focused.
Bill Gates' focus on issues of global poverty and issues of vaccines all stems from his obsession over population and overpopulation in particular parts of the world by his definition.
And let's look at the video clip number six.
Where Gates explains how his concern about poverty didn't originate from poverty, it originated from concerns about overpopulation and how much it drives and motivates almost everything he does politically.
Let's look at video clip number six.
Important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me.
When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health.
That was the main thing we did because I thought, you know, population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face.
You've got to help mothers who want to limit family size have the tools and education to do that.
And I thought that's the only thing that really counts.
Well, then I came across articles that showed that the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health.
And that sounds paradoxical.
You think, okay, better health means more kids, not less kids.
Well, in fact, what parents are doing is they're trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them.
And so the more disease burden there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability.
So there's a perfect correlation that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down.
In fact, Hans Rosling, here at this conference, in two of my favorite speeches, actually showed that unbelievable correlation that population growth has gone down.
Today, where is their high population growth?
It's in the places with the worst health conditions.
Northern Nigeria, Northern India.
And so the two problems go exactly hand in hand.
If we improve health rapidly, we will get the peak population to be as much as a billion below the current expected peak.
That is about 8.3 billion versus 9.3.
So you see for Bill Gates, his correlation and his obsession over overpopulation for every other policy prescription that he has.
And that should be subject to public debate, public discussion, particularly when the models coming out of the University of Washington and other locations at Imperial College, but particularly the Murray model that has been promoted and pitched to the White House to people like Birx and people like Fauci, by the way, both of whom have longtime affiliations and associations with Bill Gates, are predominantly funded and backed by Bill Gates.
Bill Gates has decided to reverse our public policy on the pandemic and coerced our public health officials, through his influence over the models, to get them to reverse course and do his policies and his recommended ideas, which he has not been bashful about.
Talking about vaccines as the only or primary solution, talking about digital chipping those solutions into people's bodies around the world, and being opposed to anybody who second guesses it or questions it.
Let's just look at what Bill Gates says here about President Trump.
Does this sound like someone who's a fan or a supporter?
Does it sound like someone who's deeply concerned about President Trump listening to Robert F. Kennedy and reevaluating the aspects of certain risks that vaccines may have or that other policies may have?
Let's look at the video number seven.
I never met Donald Trump before he was elected.
There was a thing during the election where he and I weren't the same place and I avoided him.
Anyway, then he got elected and so I went to see him in December.
He knew my daughter Jennifer, because Trump has this horse show thing down in Florida.
In fact, he went up and talked to Jen, and was being super nice.
And then, like 20 minutes later, he flew in in a helicopter to the same place.
So clearly he had been driven away, but he wanted to make a grand entrance in a helicopter.
So when I first talked to him, it was actually kind of scary how well he knew, how much he knew about my daughter's appearance.
But Melinda didn't like that too well.
Anyway, so I saw him at Trump Tower.
You know, I said, hey, science and innovation is a great thing.
You should be a leader who drives Innovation, and that conversation was about a broad set of things.
In energy, in health, in education.
You know, pick things you want to do that are big.
HIV vaccine, you could, you know, accelerate that.
Be associated with innovation.
And then the second time I saw him was the March after that, so March 2017 in the White House.
In both of those two meetings, he asked me if vaccines weren't a bad thing, because he was considering a commission to look into ill effects of vaccines.
And somebody, his name is Robert Kennedy Jr., was advising him that vaccines were causing bad things and I said no that's a dead end that would be a bad thing don't do that.
Both times he wanted to know if there was a difference between HIV and HPV.
So I was able to explain that those are rarely confused with each other.
Oh but wait there's more including how President Trump talks about himself next.
When I walked in his first sentence kind of threw me off.
He said, Trump hears that you don't like what Trump is doing.
And I thought, wow, but you're Trump.
Hey there, I'm Chris Hayes from MSNBC.
Thanks for watching MSNBC on YouTube.
Now do you think that Bill Gates is a fan of President Trump?
I mean, a large part of that video sounds like a caricature of President Trump.
Things that are highly unlikely or that no one else has described him as behaving like.
Instead, it played to the audience to be derisive and to be sort of snobbish towards Trump.
The one part that's likely true is that President Trump challenged Gates on whether or not we should simply allow vaccines out there, whether they're the total solution for everything in every case, or whether there should be a commission to review whether there's any risks associated, what sort of notice should be given to people, what sort of consent Informed consent should be provided before they're given, before we simply rush in.
For example, unfortunately, in both the United States and around the world, there's been an experience where people have misused vaccines, said things were vaccines that weren't, used them to sterilize populations as part of the eugenics movement in the 19-teens and 1920s, later adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, but mostly arose and originated here in the United States.
And you know who one of its prime promoters were?
It was Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
And what's the connection?
Planned Parenthood was the organization that Bill Gates' father heavily promoted when he was in Seattle, and that Bill Gates and Gates Foundation continues to promote.
You can just go to their YouTube page on Gates Foundation and find various international Planned Parenthood and other organizations whose activities they're backing and supporting.
So this is someone who has a different agenda than the president, a hostile agenda from the president, and has basically co-opted United States policy in response to this pandemic to undermine the president and instead elevate Bill Gates's personal political agenda.
When we come back after the break, we'll get into a discussion with a public opinion pollster, one of the best in the country.
In fact, has really the best track record over the past several years.
And that includes, and that's Richard Barris, founder of People's Pundit Daily.
Also talks about various economic publications in areas of economic interest.
So we'll talk to him about how all of this could impact President Trump.
How there's a correlation between the public policy response to the pandemic and President Trump's re-election.
These efforts to censor independent dissident information, the economic impact, and the rest.
So we ask you to come back after the break, and we ask you to go to our sponsor's website, infowarstore.com, where you can still buy critical products that you can enjoy for your own benefit before they censor and suppress that too.
Come back after the break.
Thank you.
Harris, who's the...
You can find him at People's Pundit daily.
You can find him online.
You can find him on social media.
You can find him on Twitter.
Without question, the most successful and most accurate forecaster in public opinion polling in the past half decade.
That's probably why many of you have never heard of him.
Because of his success with accurate polling, There's been a suppression effort, just like there's a suppression effort right now of talking about Bill Gates or raising questions about whether this policy pandemic response is really the wisest or sagest policy response we could have.
But right before we get to Richard, let's go into some of the charts just from today and from recently that have been disclosed.
Let's look at chart number one, which is one of the charts we'll be discussing with Richard.
Which talks about and shows from the Fed, talking about showing how federal debt now far exceeds the gross domestic product.
And that's a chart that's only going to get worse in the coming weeks and months.
If we go to chart number three, we see the CDC's provisional death count.
And it's keeping track.
And what does it show?
It shows our mortality rate has declined, not risen, in the recent time period compared to expectation.
Now if we go to chart number four, we see where the model is underestimated, which is the number of job losses that are taking place in the economy.
If we go to chart number 5, we see just one of the states that the models got completely wrong.
Talking about this hospital overcapacity issue that led to the panicked response of government shutting down civil society and the economy.
It estimated, first it estimated 90,000, then it was going to be 75,000, then 60,000, now it's going to be 17,000 within a few weeks.
The similar, if we go to chart number 6 in California, we see again that they admit that their projection numbers were off by a ratio of more than 2 to 1 compared to what they expected.
Let's go to chart number 7.
And here we have the weekly provisional figures on death and mortality rates in England and Wales.
And if we go over to the March 20th one, we'll see that the total deaths have barely increased over what was expected, given comparable time periods in the past.
This suggests there has not been a plague-like surge in mortality across the Western world, used as the pretext to justify this economic shutdown and civil society suppression.
If we go to chart number eight, Alabama was supposed to be a disaster by now.
Instead, it's about 1 20th of what they expected to be the case.
If we go to chart number nine, by the way, all these models were the models done by those associated with Bill Gates, backed by Bill Gates, and sold to the White House.
And President Trump is what was going to happen unless he shut down the economy and allowed the government lockdowns to go in place.
We go to chart number 9 in Colorado, we see again the estimates are off by almost a ratio of 20x.
We go to chart number 10, we see in Washington, similarly the chart numbers were off by a very large number.
Go to chart number 11, Louisiana was supposed to be a complete disaster, turned out to be mostly limited to New Orleans and related to Mardi Gras, and the numbers are off by a ratio of about 20 to 1.
So that's the reality of sort of what we're facing and dealing with while at the same time the economic news continues to decline and the economic news continues to expose a wide range of problems.
Now there's another issue that's going to happen as the death rates get reported is that essentially if you're a hospital administrator the best way for you to get federal funding is for you to list a death that's being caused by coronavirus even if it doesn't fit the medical definition or legal definition for cause of death.
As this article talks about in Modern Healthcare, tracking COVID-19 hospital expenses is important for federal funding.
As an article from CNN admitted, the Trump administration will reimburse hospitals for treating uninsured coronavirus patients using stimulus funds and most importantly, Medicare rates rather than Medicaid rates.
This is critical for hospitals.
They've been giving every financial incentive to increase the number of deaths that are going to be reported to the virus.
Well, let's go to chart number 25.
If we look at that, we'll see that they've been tracking those countries that have had a dramatic reduction in public participation in social life and those countries that have not.
And what you'll do is when you overlap it with the growth of the virus, you find there's no correlation between shutting down civil society and the public economy and reducing the spread of the virus, at least so far.
So that's where we stand currently.
So let's bring in Richard.
Richard, glad you could be here and glad you could be on.
Thanks for having me.
I like that intro.
You're throwing up all of those charts.
We've seen a lot of charts lately, Robert, and we're looking at all the wrong ones.
Exactly.
And can you talk about some of the ones that are really pertinent and relevant?
As someone who studies, I mean, you have a subscription-based service with People's Pundit Daily.
You have inside information about public opinion.
You've been by far the most accurate public opinion pollster that I've seen.
I mean, I actually came across you back when I was going to bet in the 2016 election.
And I was looking for people that were above average accurate, given how bad polling had become over the last half decade.
And you were consistently calling things in the 2014 Senate races that other people weren't.
Then you were calling things in the 2016 presidential election that people weren't.
You're on top of both sides of what was happening, good and bad, in the Senate and the House in 2018.
So you have access to data and information that other people don't.
You're more accurate forecasting than other people are.
So could you talk about what charts people should be looking at and what charts the president should be looking at right now?
Right now, they should be looking at the modeling that's online that the president's using.
And look at that shaded area that's called the confidence interval.
So you have the low end of the forecast range and you have the high end of the forecast range.
And you can go and you can see their revisions.
And what we've consistently seen here is that, you know, that it was basically, you know, almost a doomsday scenario at first.
And we have seen these weaning downs, these downward revisions, but In the end here, Robert, the charts you're seeing in big media, Financial Times did this the other day, really deceptive.
You know, we have to explain the definitions per capita to people.
This is, you know, not the time for this kind of reporting.
And again, I think we've been hearing to this expression that models are only as good as the data that you put into them.
But in truth, that that's really only half the story.
Models are only as good as the data you put into them, and they're only as good as the assumptions that you make when you're creating them.
And that is what really has been the major have been the major flaws with the various models that we've seen.
It's the assumptions.
And I've gotten into this over the last week or two, really in more depth.
But the idea that we can at this point measure social distancing is one of the biggest falsehoods that I've heard.
Eventually, we may be able to do that.
But right now, we just simply do not have the data to put it.
They're getting this information from looking at cases, numbers, all the different burden estimates in other countries.
The biggest data set, That's going into these models is, of course, China.
And they're looking at the spread of the virus, the spread of the disease, before and after China started their own mitigation efforts.
But you cannot do that if you cannot trust your underlying data set.
And China's not trustworthy.
And it's beyond even whether or not the government tells the truth.
Their testing has been terrible.
And, you know, now we know European countries sending back vast numbers, thousands upon thousands of tests that were just not good quality tests.
That's enough in and of itself to question the data coming out of there, let alone anything to do with whether or not you can believe the Communist Party of China.
I mean, I think the fascinating thing is the degree to which they have projected this with the veneer of science.
It reminds me of like a criminal case, where they say, oh, we have the blood evidence, we have this.
But unless you know the chain of custody, unless you know who studied it, unless you know who had access to it, unless you know those other facts, you don't know whether that's a credible scientific report or not.
And of course, there's been epidemics.
Speaking of epidemics, epidemics of false reports from government labs in the criminal context for the past 40 years.
I represented one of the first whistleblowers who blew the whistle on Michigan all the way back to the 1970s.
So the idea that our data labs would be any better here when it came to something like a virus, particularly politically contaminated places who have their own motivations and own their own political patrons with their own personal political agenda.
is extraordinary.
And what's been amazing is in part probably due to the scientific illiteracy of large members of the media, these questions are never raised in the press conferences.
Nobody says what exactly was the assumption for what was the infection rate assumption?
What was the symptomatic versus asymptomatic infection rate assumption?
What was the rate of contagion assumption about different forms of social distancing?
As Tucker Carlson was talking about last night, in the case of SARS, and may now be repeating here, it could travel through the plumbing.
And what happened is one person was able to infect an entire building, even though she never met them, because it went through the plumbing.
So are there circumstances where confined quarters and close continuous contact Like we're encouraging with these mass quarantines and public house arrests could actually backfire in certain settings.
While at the same time we're telling people not to go outside when there's a wide range of data and information that being outside is a much safer place to be to limit the transmission of the disease.
So it's extraordinary.
Can you explain to people how important?
Understanding assumptions are for doing any kind of data analysis because that's what you do every day when you're trying to study do a poll you're trying to sample how do I get 500 people to represent the opinions of 500 million people or 5 million whatever the number may be that requires key data metrics that requires key assumptions that go into that and key measurements and can you talk about how that hasn't consistently happened here in this context?
Right, well, the R-Row, so the infection rates, right?
The R-Row, that was one of the biggest warning signs.
So the difference between 2.5% and a little over 3% is a major deal.
And that, thinking about that in the context of what we're telling people to do, which is to stay away from each other, you know, stay away from strangers, but, you know, but not within household, multi-generational households.
So in that context, it really wouldn't make sense now, would it?
But again, these assumptions, I liken this because of what I do.
I liken this to what they did with these models.
I try to liken with election forecasting, where it would be as if I took polling data that I knew was just wrong.
And then another variable like historical vote preference.
And I took that.
and maybe I didn't trust the historical vote breakdown of a certain cycle or something, so I just decided that I was going to put it in there anyway.
These tiny little, the 2.5 to 3.2 can throw the whole thing off, just like any sampling error could throw off whether or not something's representative of the group of people that you're trying to survey.
This is obviously a little bit more complicated because we're looking at different countries here, okay?
But at this point, it's going to be very easy for them to try to blame social distancing for these failures, but they know it, and any statistician will tell you – At this point, without that ultimate denominator, and that's going to take mass antibody testing.
I mean, we just don't, we're not anywhere near, you know, the idea that we could come up with, you know, to quantify the impact of social distancing.
So, you know, think about if you don't know that, would it have been wise to make such a draconian policy decision based on so many voids So it's not even a matter of, you know, it's not only a matter of flawed assumptions.
It's a matter of just a whole missing data sets.
We just don't know.
Exactly.
They're making extraordinary policy judgments that have never been made before, that are entirely ahistorical, that are contrary to the spread of viruses for the last century plus.
Like I saw today, the New York Times was trying to mislead people into believing that during the Spanish flu, cities did the same thing.
And they were saying, oh, look at how these cities had this actual economic boom during this time period and after this time period, the ones that were the most severe.
Not disclosing that not a single city in America shut down its economy in that time frame.
Not a single city in America shut down full civil society.
They shut down mass gatherings.
They shut down certain places where people would congregate, parades, certain sort of, they had social distancing policies they recommended for churches.
They shut down schools because it was, children were vulnerable.
But they didn't shut down any jobs.
They didn't shut down any factories.
They didn't shut down any businesses.
So it's completely ahistorical what's happening here.
Now from someone who's watching the economic literature and the economic data, what economic effect might this have?
And particularly the president seems to presume and some of his patrons seem to presume That there's just going to be a V response and everything, what they call V bounce-back recovery, and that it will be like this never even happened within a month or two.
And I don't see that.
Historically, that's really never happened from a complete contraction of the economy and shock, both on the supply side and demand side, we're delivering to the world.
What's your interpretation of the economic data?
How likely could this be severe versus how likely it is just to bounce back easily?
Well, I think first, I just want to say that I think that we're framing this argument in a money versus life kind of argument, and it really isn't.
It's really a matter of quality of life and life versus quality of life and life.
So GDP around the world, developed countries, watching, you know, emerging countries, I mean, watching emerging countries become developed modern economies, there is a clear relationship between rising GDP life and better life, higher life expectancies, better quality of life.
So when we reverse that, it's going to be the opposite, of course.
So I just want to say that because that never gets out there.
And we're kind of handicapped having this argument.
But in a in a month or two, I think there is a chance because the underlying fundamentals of the economy were strong, even though there are structural problems with the economy that it's not just Trump.
There have been administrations for decades have not addressed what are structural problems with the economy and weaknesses, I would say.
You know, basically, there are points that can be exploited.
And I think we've seen that with the coronavirus.
But the longer this goes on, you cannot just turn Supply lines on and off like a switch.
That's not how it works.
And the longer this continues, the more difficult it will be to see an extreme bounce back.
We have never seen numbers like this before.
The jobless claims that we've gotten now, 10 million loss in jobs last from the BLS Employment Situation Report, 701,000 for the last month.
That only included up until March 12th.
It will be revised and it will be very ugly.
The jobless claims in two days from now will be disgusting on Thursday morning.
It's, and that is real pain.
That's real suffering.
You know, it's not just a virus that can cause real suffering.
That is, that is real world impact right there.
And again, too, there was parts of that bill that they passed that are incentivizing people to stay home until the end of July.
He had, he likes, Donald Trump likes to say he was presiding over the strongest economy ever in the history of the world.
Well, he was certainly presiding over the strongest labor market, the tightest labor market.
You know, watching these indicators and tracking these records, we have never seen record after record after record after record.
But at the same time, you cannot let this go on for these prolonged periods of time and expect It to just bounce back.
That's, that's not how it happens.
And I, you know, not to be negative Nancy here, but I think there's a lot of self diluting out there, Robert, that you're just going to be able to turn it back on in a month and the devastation will be over.
That's just not, there will be small businesses who will, who will be gone by that time, never to return again.
So the people they had working for them at that point, they're not going to have a job to come back to.
They're going to sit and collect unemployment until July, and then they're going to try to figure out what to do.
Exactly.
I mean, one thing that was interesting was Michael Burry, who was made famous by Christian Bale in the movie The Big Short, based on the book, by Michael Lewis, who forecast that the, who basically made a big bet, his big bet was shorting the market about mortgage-backed securities in 2006, 2007, before it came about in 2008.
He had, he went on sort of a tweet storm where he was talking about how, what you were talking about.
Not only is the economy not something that can be so easily turned back on, but that failing to assess the economic pain here ignores the human loss both in quality of life and actual life that is occurring because of this shutdown.
As he talks about it, and not only is he a guy that's obviously one of the best investors and readers of the markets in the country, but he has an MD from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
And as he talks about, he says it's the most devastating economic force in modern history.
It is man-made, this shutdown.
It bleeds deep anguish and it's going to lead to suicide.
It's going to lead to domestic abuse rises, where you're going to have kids and children and wives and severe harm.
And it's going to trigger a whole bunch of sequences that are going to hit the most vulnerable the hardest.
Those people you were talking about had their unemployment rate at record lows.
African-Americans, Latinos, low-income workers, lower on the wage on the scale, finally seeing their wages rise after a decade of stagnation.
You have people that are predicting and forecasting what's going to happen in stagflation.
With each increase in the unemployment rate, they estimate as many as 30,000 suicides.
You have people, you had a murder-suicide today of someone who's just so scared of the virus.
When he thought he had the virus, he killed his wife and himself.
This is what a nurse killed herself in Spain who thought it was going to be a terrible consequence because of the media hysteria and panic that they've been pushing out there about this virus even though the data shows that people under 60 with no underlying condition have an extremely low risk of death from this occurring.
And people forget all of the quality of life and life expectancy itself that is reduced when quality of life goes down.
So that that could have a much more dramatic effect on our life expectancy over time in terms of the economic shutdown and civil society losses and suppression of civil liberties than could the virus could ever cause.
Though the analogy I use for people is you could pick 78 years living under Cuba Well, they've done a great job with life expectancy.
I don't have a problem with life expectancy.
When it turns out you can't drive a car and you can rarely leave your home and you're constantly monitored and surveilled and there's no crime because nobody can commit a crime.
Yeah, you can extend your life, but there isn't a Cuban alive that wouldn't leave that to come to Miami and enjoy 77 years of U.S.
freedom.
And the grandparents were purportedly trying to protect.
None of them would choose to forfeit the freedom that they spent most of their life fighting for and willing to risk their life for simply to change the cause of death on their medical certificate so their kids could have a complete forfeiture of the civil freedoms and liberties we spent two centuries building and they want to get us to give up in two weeks.
Can you talk about the next stage of this?
The models have been wrong.
The economy may not bounce back in the way Trump wants.
How is all of this impacting President Trump?
Because I see also from a lot of Trump supporters a certain idealism.
That this won't have any impact, that even though his Trump card of the economic recovery is now gone, that this won't have any impact on his re-election bid.
You're seeing some of the polling data, and I'm watching that data, and while the media data is not reliable and not trustworthy, they've proven that over the years.
They're seeing trends that raise questions and doubts, and for me it goes back to political history.
Winston Churchill won World War II.
One hit for the people of England.
One of the greatest traumas they'd ever been through.
Beat Hitler, one of the worst evil adversaries in the history of the world.
And then they threw him out in a landslide a few months later.
So could you talk about what risk the president faces currently if the current course goes unabated and unchanged?
We saw a lot of that unchecked optimism in 2018, too.
And, you know, I thought that might have been a little bit of a gut check for some of the, you know, president supporters, but it hasn't been to many.
And, you know, the economic impact from this thing could be almost immeasurable, like you were talking about.
And I'm nothing if not consistent.
When the president had a good economy at his back, history tells us incumbent presidents do not lose with economies as strong as the one President Trump was presiding over.
Now, A lot of these other forecasters out there have used this and what we now foresee to be economic pain as a way to kind of justify their, you know, their projections, their ratings, their polling that they've had over the last year or so, which didn't favor them and didn't give the president the historical favoritism that he really deserves and should get as an incumbent president.
There's a flip side to that.
If the economy does not rebound sharply to the point where people feel it, Then there has been no president who has won reelection on such an economic downturn.
And every time I say that, too, people bring up FDR.
And there's two things major with that comparison.
The Great Depression started before FDR.
That's number one.
And number two, any of the downturns during, you know, his excessive term.
We're never largely viewed to be his fault, his doing the, you know, during most of the, uh, during most of his tenure until he died, the country was at war.
It was just a very different time.
And again, nobody viewed that to be FDR's, uh, they didn't happen on his watch, basically, and no president.
The only example that you could pull out of that would be 1992.
Which the economy was not really in the downturn anymore.
And you could definitely make the case that had Ross Perot not been in that race, Herbert Walker Bush would have won again.
But the general, the hundred years of data tells us that the president is in a lot of trouble if this doesn't turn around.
People ultimately will go back to their pocketbook.
And we're already seeing that.
He had a very modest bump, a rally around the flag effect during this coronavirus impact.
And that is going to wait.
It was modest and small compared to other presidents and even other world leaders around, you know, now.
Boris Johnson was at 72, 73% approval.
So we're talking about a very small bump.
Now, there will always be the president's supporters who will support him.
There's almost nothing you can do to get those core supporters away.
Only Donald Trump can break that bond.
That is absolutely true.
When we're back after the break, we'll ask Richard what he believes the president needs to do and the timetable he needs to do it.
So join us back.
Welcome back to American Countdown as we're a minute from midnight on the public policy responses to this pandemic and the potential collateral consequences and calamitous consequences.
Our response to the pandemic may in fact inflict upon American society, our economy and the chance of President Trump's reelections.
Just to go through some of the headlines and articles that talk about the same thing Richard is talking about.
There is a piece today about how we should not underestimate the pandemic's economic fallout, makes the point that a whiplash of the economy can create as much devastation in terms of lives lost as any pandemic, using as examples the disruption in supply chains that took place in the famous Bengal famine of 1943, the Chinese famine of 1960,
All of which were the result of public policies in response to concerns about viruses, not from the viruses themselves, that cost more life and did more damage than the virus ever could.
Another article discussing what Richard was talking about at the top of the hour, the dramatic reduction in COVID-19 disaster projections, the charts the president needs to be paying attention to.
The charts that show that, in fact, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, heavily funded and supported and subsidized by Bill Gates, no friend of the president, has a policy agenda different than the president, and wants to use this pandemic to push those policy preferences, along with his allies in the White House itself, in terms of Fauci and others.
And while they predicted 260,000 beds needed in one place, it turned out to be 140,000, or ended up being less and less, and they go through all the details of all the different projections that were wrong or erroneous.
Another article today about how businesses are almost out of money and the government's attempts to meet that burden are simply not being met.
Another article today about how we cannot wait for a coronavirus cure to go back to our way of life, the American way of life of civil liberties and an open economy.
So, Richard, what do you think the next steps Trump needs to take to enhance his chances of re-election and to protect the American economy and the American way of life?
And when do you think he needs to take those actions?
You know, to echo that last headline, Trump's best role is a cheerleader for America, like he said the other day.
So there are all these voices out there, largely because the media has been able to choose who we're getting, you know, who are the experts we're listening to here.
A lot of people have been pushed to the side that don't agree with this policy.
We're going to have to get back to the grind sooner rather than later.
I understand, you know, the argument, take your foot off the gas pedal too early.
That's very powerful of an argument, but Trump's going to have to convince And soon it won't take that much convincing.
And we're already seeing that with the polling.
People understand, you know, they're realists.
Americans are, they're idealists at heart, but they're realists when it comes to their pocketbook.
And if two things are going to have to happen.
For the president to be able to get back in a position where he's favored to win re-election, not just whether he would.
But one, the economy will have to turn around.
We're not going to get those GDP numbers that tell us it is, even if we do see a nice bounce back.
We won't get that until after the election, until December.
So people are, it's going to have to be sooner rather than later, because people are going to have to feel it.
They're going to have to know, and they're going to have to feel it in their pocketbooks.
They're going to have to see it in the smiles on their family's faces.
People have an inherent way of understanding when they're in a good position and not a good position, and that's what dictates whether they want change or not.
And then the second thing is, how this pans out, people are going to have to say, this wasn't Donald Trump's fault.
Or at least he didn't exacerbate it.
And that's what the Democrats are going to try to seize on.
And tucked away in that $2.2 trillion stimulus bill was a nice little committee to investigate the President.
And they're going to use that.
And we already heard Adam Schiff talk.
They know what I'm saying right now.
And they're going to try to make this out to be something that they can tie around Trump's neck, hang around his neck.
Because if we get to the place, Robert, where we don't even hit that 81 that they've revised to, and then the economy opens back up and goes, you know, early enough that we see some at least significant recoveries.
We're, you know, quick.
And maybe by the summer, we're tacking on, you know, mid to high six figures because of it.
Then he's going to be a rock star.
And there's nothing short that's what he needs to do at this point.
Because of, again, we have not seen these numbers yet.
And Americans haven't even really begun to feel the pain that will come if we do not reverse course soon.
We, you know, I heard today that four to eight week mark.
That's too late, Robert.
That's too late.
I mean, go out and talk to your neighbors, folks.
They don't have four to eight weeks.
Maybe they can squeeze out, you know, the low end of that.
But another two months of this will destroy small businesses.
And what does that mean for Trump's election?
At that point, he would be the underdog.
Exactly.
I mean, when we're seeing sort of dairy farms having to pour out milk, in the same sense, the lost labor value, we can never get back.
The lost inventive and opportunity value, we can never get back.
The lost capital, to a large degree, we can never get back.
We already had extraordinary levels of corporate debt and governmental debt.
Across the Western world, we have currency issues that are related, correlated there too.
We are not in a position, we're not someone that has two years of savings that the whole population has, that every corporation has, that every government has.
We're in just the opposite position where everybody at some fundamental level is a debtor.
An ordinary American household usually has no more than a week's income saved or week's expenses saved.
Most American businesses have no more than a month's capital reserves.
Major American corporations have shrunk their capital reserves and their cash on hand in exchange for corporate debt in order to prop up pension funds.
And if we see a sequence of...
Well, bad activities where we see pension funds start to go down.
They're already underfunded.
What happens if they can't meet half of the payments that are expected to people?
And then you have 401ks that enhance that problem.
You could have a cascading set of issues on the financial side of the economy that mirrors and enhances the problems on the real economy of people on Main Street who don't have the wherewithal or the means to be able to continue to sustain their businesses in a complete shutdown with this shock on both the demand and supply side of the economy that's really unprecedented in American history.
So I think you're right.
We absolutely have to move forward.
We have to move forward fast and hopefully the president will do it.
I think he's the only guy in the Western world who would have the political instincts to recognize the need to move fast and to reject all these white lab coat experts telling him doom and gloom for their own political and personal purposes.
What do you think the president ultimately does do over the next several weeks and do you think he takes the kind of action that's necessary both to protect the country but also to preserve his re-election chances?
Yeah, I think the president, first and foremost, is a businessman.
You can see him wanting to crawl out of his skin during every press conference.
He knows.
He is, you know, I would, I would completely agree with what you just said.
He really is the only one that, you know, I don't know.
Do you know another, you know, high profile political figure right now who has the instincts and the experience that Donald Trump has?
He does get it.
He's had it all.
He really is, you know, understood this all along.
It's just the first day through the Imperial College, Adam, Robert, and then, you know, and then what it was just really a trickle of doomsday predictions.
It was to the point where they put him in a position where he almost would he would have been derelict.
If he wouldn't have done anything.
And that's, again, a danger to public policy for having a media like we do that just, you know, criticizes any political figure like this to such an extreme where that has to weigh into their decision making.
But unfortunately, that's the reality we're in right now.
And, you know, again, I think the most important thing is here.
He does have these.
He does have good instincts.
And he knows he knows that you cannot turn on and off supply lines.
I saw that video that dairy trucks filling out milk.
We're going to see a lot more video footage like that.
And we're going to and if you thought the problems at the grocery store were bad now, it will get a lot worse.
And if we don't if we just sit back and continue on the trajectory that some of these people that The never-ending shutdown crowd wants to continue on.
And eventually, you know, with the public where they are right now, I think we're already starting to see that pivot.
Trump is really good at reading the American people, even the ones that don't like him.
He's very good at it.
And I think he's going to, if he hasn't already, which, you know, I suspect he has, he's going to start to sense that sea change.
You know, it's been a couple of week vacation for some people, but you pointed out before and you're right.
Most Americans don't have savings.
To be hanging on like this.
25% in polling today, 25%, a quarter of the population, actually believes this idea that the government can spend their way out of this crisis.
And they know we just have to get back to work sooner rather than later.
And now we're seeing bigger majorities than we've seen in years, concerned about the debt.
Which is unbelievable.
Here we are back in a Republican administration where debt is, you know, it is again becoming a concern.
Eight years of Obama spending untold amount of money.
He basically got a free passport.
It was a Republican talking point.
But then they get the reins again and we are seeing this money getting tacked in the national debt.
It absolutely is making people nervous because they start when people are more concerned about their own financial situation.
They start to worry about the situation in their country too.
It's just, you know, it becomes part of their psyche, you know, and that's a position you don't want to be in.
If you're an incumbent and you're at the tail end of all that criticism, it's certainly going to come his way.
So, you know, again, I think he will, though.
I do.
And I'm optimistic.
The American, we've seen it just in the last Couple of weeks, the ingenuity of the American people.
I think a big part of the failure of these models is a testament to American ingenuity and American medicine and American talent and will.
And I do think if we get back sooner rather than later, we can turn this ship around.
And I think honestly, a lot of the president's opponents are worried about that.
Let's be real here.
They're worried about that.
They don't want to get back too soon, because we could we could have a snapback effect.
I think if we move this thing forward, And he listens to his instincts doesn't mean he has to ignore the experts.
But if he does move this thing forward, we can we can avoid some of this collateral.
It's just collateral damage.
Again, I we have to start talking about this issue to not just about money or economics versus life and public health.
This is really a life-versus-life issue, a quality-of-life-versus-quality-of-life issue.
And, you know, the economics aspect is almost immeasurable.
They may not be able to measure the public health part of this, but the economics will be immeasurable.
And I think the President does understand that.
I really do.
Yeah, I agree.
Thanks for joining us.
For anybody out there, they can find Richard and People's Pundit Daily online.
They can find them at Twitter and other social media sites.
I've been a subscriber for multiple years.
If you want to get inside and inside information, you can get it in advance.
The president can rely on his uncanny instincts, so he doesn't always have to be a subscriber, but for the rest of us, it's very well advised.
So thanks for joining, Richard, and I recommend everybody go to the site, and if you can become a subscriber, do so.
Thanks for joining us.
The, uh, as we go further, let's look at sort of what some of the political issues are that the president faces and why the agenda of people like Bill Gates may not be in conformity to the president's agenda or in the best interest of the president.
Let's look at video number 13.
Sure, no problem. no problem.
What we're going to do is we're going to look at the background of Bill Gates' connection to why he's so concerned about issues related to overpopulation, what the history of that is, what that can mean, why there's ways in which films like that we discussed earlier, Inferno and others, portray people who have this sort of obsession over overpopulation and why we have to keep those people in check.
Not saying Bill Gates is going to be one of those people or is, but it's a reason for the public to exercise its democratic restraint.
So let's take a look at this video here.
Nearly 2,400 years ago in ancient Greece, Plato discussed the importance of population control.
Aristotle advocated the use of abortion and infanticide.
In 1798, an essay on the principle of population was written by Thomas Malthus.
He outlined the idea of positive checks, which are diseases, wars, disasters, famines, and genocides.
Malthus believed that these things should be utilized to increase the death rate, and believed that human misery was an absolute necessary consequence.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species.
In it, Darwin only hinted at the implications of human populations, but his cousin, Sir Francis Galton, became obsessed with the idea.
In 1883, Galton published Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development, wherein he wrote that his intention is to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race or, as we might call it, with eugenic the term comes from the greek word eugenics of noble birth In the early 20th century, eugenics became an academic discipline in universities.
Organizations were formed and funded to win public support.
The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the Cold Spring Harbor Institute rejected the idea that all humans are born equal and began selling the idea of cultivating a new master race of noble bloodlines.
Planned Parenthood was formed in America by racial eugenics advocate Margaret Sanger.
President of IBM, Thomas J. Watson, established a special subsidiary in Poland called Watson Business Machines to assist in the Nazi invasion of Poland.
This business continued throughout the war, and IBM managed the entire operation from their headquarters in New York.
During the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis quoted U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in their own defense.
They claimed that their eugenics program was being run from the United States.
The Nazis were rightly admonished for war crimes, but not Thomas Watson.
He went on to create the IBM World Trade Corporation and passed IBM on to his son.
His granddaughter ended up marrying Margaret Sanger's grandson.
Bill Gates' father worked on the board for Planned Parenthood, and his mother worked on the corporate board for IBM, who Bill partnered with to create Microsoft.
With no medical background, Bill Gates then went on to become the world's foremost pusher of vaccines and population control.
Do you think this is all coincidence?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds the WHO, the NIH, the CDC, and the UN.
And now he is saying that until we get mass vaccinations, we might never be able to gather in groups.
And which activities, like mass gatherings, may be, in a certain sense, more optional.
And so until you're widely vaccinated, those may not come back at all.
The president's coronavirus response team are all pushing the Bill Gates vaccination agenda.
Dr. Fauci is on the leadership council for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In January of 2017, Anthony Fauci told a crowd at Georgetown University that there would be a surprise outbreak during the Trump presidency.
There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease, and we have certainly a large burden of that, but also there will be a surprise outbreak.
Deborah Birx is a board member for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which was founded by the Gates Foundation and known for millions of dollars of fraudulent misuse of funds.
In October of 2019, Bill Gates sponsored Event 201, a simulation that estimated 65 million people killed by coronavirus.
In November of 2019, the Peer Bright Institute, funded by Bill Gates, was granted European patent number EP3172319B1 for a coronavirus vaccine that may be used to treat humans.
Today, Dr. Fauci says the virus will keep coming back, and he says the ultimate game-changer will be a new vaccine.
In Australia, the Prime Minister is telling people the shutdown will last months, that it's the new normal, and that the only way out of your homes is to accept the vaccine.
There is no proof that vaccines are the answer.
In fact, the CDC admitted in federal court that it does not have studies to support the claim that vaccines do not cause autism.
A top UN scientist admitted that vaccines are killing people.
It is time to do some hard thinking.
Will you allow your government to impose forced vaccinations?
For InfoWars.com, this is Greg Reese.
These are the kind of questions that should be fairly asked of Bill Gates and asked of those people that are using this pandemic as a pretext to suppress civil liberties and to shut down and suspend our economy.
They should not be censored or removed from the public square.
Doing so not only risks President Trump's re-election, but the core civil liberties that define the quality of life for most Americans and the economic freedom necessary to make that quality of life continuous on an ongoing basis.
For those people who say, well, there's a trade-off between public health and public economy, they don't realize that public health is entirely dependent upon the public economy.
Have you been to a third-world hospital?
Would you want to go there tomorrow?
Probably not.
Why?
Because there's a co-relationship between the health of the public economy and the economy of public health.
In that same context, we are going to take your calls over the last half of the hour to listen to you, the jury, and you ask the questions that you want.
Try to have it be within a minute so that we can provide the most answers to the most people that call in.
We always appreciate that.
And let me give you the numbers for you to call in to.
The first one is 877-789-2539.
That's 877-789-2539.
Additionally, if you're calling internationally, put in your country code and dial 1-512-646-1776.
That's 877-789-2539.
Additionally, if you're calling internationally, put in your country code and dial 1-512-646-1776.
That's 1-512-646-1776.
As we talk about and discuss the issues on this platform that you won't hear discussed in a lot of the establishment press or the gatekeepers allowed to be discussed by big tech, even on places like YouTube and elsewhere, we recommend that you go to InfoWarsStore.com.
That is the sponsor of this particular program, providing a platform for independent information to be thoroughly and meaningfully discussed, for questions to be meaningfully raised and contested, for those opinions that the institutional narrative wants to oppress or suppress to be fully participant within the public square.
In fact, right now, and particularly if you're stuck at home and you're stuck in an isolated setting and confined quarters, this is no better time to get something like Alexa Breeze, which is an air purifier, an air filter.
There's probably no better time you could get this than now, given the circumstances many people find themselves at home.
So you can go to Infowarsstore.com and they're providing a discount currently available for the Alexa Breeze product for the air purifier for your home and you can have it in the air filter for your home so that it can be a little bit more manageable than the circumstances many cities, counties, states and governments have imposed upon people not only here but in large parts of the Western world.
So go there.
You can get a discount to it.
Recommend you get it now before it either sells out or before some governor or some mayor or some city or county official decides that suddenly you can't buy it or can't purchase it or can't be a participant in it.
As we come back, we're going to be discussing why it is that there's been a prior resistance to various forms of mandatory forced vaccines, why people feel like they should be right to ask questions or challenge or contest what goes into their own body.
As just one context, in one of the vaccines that was pushed by the Gates Foundation and others, triggered a response much like you're seeing currently in parts of Africa from Africa then.
Let's look at video clip number 10.
Let's look at video clip number 10.
Yes, the Catholic Church has stepped up its opposition to the exercise, dismissing it as a population control tool.
Doctors allied to the Catholic Church in Kenya are now warning women of reproductive age against taking the vaccine, saying it could render them sterile.
Or could it?
Well, KTN's Wilkes-Tanyabo begins our news coverage with that story.
In three days, public health officials will finish administering the third dose of tetanus vaccines.
But the complaints that have marred the exercise are likely to echo long after they are gone.
The loudest voice that of leaders from the Catholic Church who have urged followers to boycott vaccines.
In the current tetanus vaccine, the Catholic Church advises all Kenyans not to participate in the vaccination program.
The anti-tetanus drive is part of a five-dose campaign that targets women of childbearing age.
The first round of vaccinations took place in September last year and the second in March this year.
The third round has aroused the suspicion of Catholic doctors who claim that the tetanus injections could cause sterility in women.
Is there a tetanus crisis in Kenya?
If this is so, why has it not been declared?
Why does the campaign target women of 14 and 49 years?
Why has the campaign left out girls below 14 and yet girls between 13 and 9 years become pregnant if what they are worried about is neonatal tetanus?
Why have they left out boys and men knowing they are all prone to tetanus, even more than women?
When anybody then Says in a country dying of malaria, dying of HIV, dying of cancer, dying of diabetes, and you prioritize a disease that some of us have not seen.
The Catholic Doctors Association of Kenya claims to have undertaken independent tests to back the allegations.
When injected to a non-pregnant woman, combined with the tetanus toxoid, she develops antibodies Against both tetanus and HCG.
When she conceives, the body fails to recognize HCG as a friend and will produce anti-HCG antibodies, destroying her own natural HCG.
This is not the first time the government has been accused of using vaccinations as a permanent population control tool.
In some parts of the country, health workers administering repeat polio vaccines have faced opposition.
The government maintains that the tetanus vaccines are geared towards reducing the chances of mothers transmitting tetanus to their newborns.
The standoff is now likely to jeopardize plans to proceed with the fourth and fifth rounds of tetanus vaccinations across the country.
In an era in a society where increasingly life imitates art more than art imitates life, we'll go back after the break to a book and a film made popular by John Le Carr called The Constant Gardener, which talked about this problem being a recurrent problem in poor countries and around the world.
Who are treated as human guinea pigs rather than treated as human beings.
Maybe that's why they have concerns about vaccines.
Maybe that's why they have concerns about people in white lab coats taking over their lives in the way that maybe we should be concerned about people in white lab coats taking over our economy and our civil society and suspending our constitutional liberty.
To give you just an example of the kind of ideas being currently banning about, take a look at this video clip, video clip 16, which goes into where the WHO, the World Health Organization, you'll sometimes hear them called WHO, is a someone prominent within that organization is talking about taking people's families away from them, taking people's children away from them in the name of protecting you and protecting your kids from the pandemic.
Let's take a look at video 16.
At the moment, in most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that's actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household, at family level.
In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units.
Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.
It's now my great pleasure to invite Lady Gaga That's the world in which we reside.
When they're talking about inviting Lady Gaga, well, the main health person says we're going to remove your children or maybe remove your parents or remove some intimate part of your family in a safe and dignified manner.
We're going to isolate them in quarantine and prevent you from seeing them.
There's people all across the country have been emailing and texting and messaging me talking about how they people who wanted to get the last rites at a hospital but they were denied that opportunity.
People who wanted to be with a ill sick someone who was facing potential death and could not even talk to their family on their deathbed.
That's the kind of civil society that Bill Gates thinks is a good one.
Maybe it's not such a good one.
When we come back after the break, we'll listen to you and hear your calls and discuss it from you, the jury.
Is this the America we want?
Is this the America Our Founders Started?
Welcome back to America Countdown.
As we sit a minute from midnight on our American economy, our American political experiment, and potentially on Trump's re-election bid itself.
As we discussed at the beginning of this broadcast, there's an effort to both suppress information and to censor independent information from the public debate and the public discussion and the public square.
In order to permit this economic shutdown, to permit this suppression of civil liberties, to continue unabated and unquestioned and unchallenged and uncontested.
And in the process, to undermine the ability of President Trump's own re-election efforts to the degree that it can serve the interest of the American public interest.
We live in an age and a time period just within the last several weeks in which we couldn't question or contest the establishment narrative on masks and whether they were beneficial in response to the virus.
We couldn't ask questions or challenge or contest whether or not anti-malarial drugs could be useful in the fight against the coronavirus.
We weren't supposed to question or contest the models backed by Bill Gates and others being propagated into the public square and into the highest ranking Offices of both the UK and the United States governments.
And now we're not supposed to question or contest either Bill Gates or 5G or anything else that's independent or dissident from the establishment narrative.
From the gatekeepers of the institutional narrative.
In that same context, thankfully we have a platform here to raise those questions.
To independently contest the independent information that's being asserted by the establishment press and media.
So we recommend going to our sponsor who has made all of this possible, InfoWarsStore.com, where right now you can buy the Alexa Pure air filter, which is particularly apt and appropriate when you're in confined quarters on a continuous basis in the way this lockdown is imposed on 80 to 90 percent of American society.
It helps purify the air, cleanse it of molds, of bacteria, of allergens.
Particularly beneficial during this time period when so many people are stuck together over such a compressed time period and a continuous time period and we don't know when it will end.
So we recommend that you go to Infowarsstore.com.
There's a current discount available to you for those who are watching the show and to take advantage of it to get these necessary and beneficial products that support this show and that make it a potential and make it a reality.
In the world that we live in today, increasingly, we see life imitating art more than art imitating life.
As just one illustration and an example, John Le Carr, years ago, wrote a book that became a movie, known as The Constant Gardener.
And in it, he portrayed what was really underlying truth.
He disguises fact as fiction.
In fact, if you go back and look at his history, he was himself a spy for MI6 back in the day for the Brits.
Came in, he left that world because he was so deeply bothered by its lack of moral compass and its lack of connection to ordinary everyday people.
Celebrated in his first book and film, The Spy That Came In From the Cold, exposing the misuse and abuse of power if we let people in the gray coats decide what our future is going to be.
He forecast and previewed the collapse of the Soviet Union in his book, later celebrated as a film also, called Russia House.
He also forecast and foreshadowed the world of people like Christopher Steele, who tried to take out President Trump in Steelgate and the Dossiergate and the Spygate scandals of 2015 and 2016.
In his book, later also turned into a film, called The Tailor of Panama.
If you wanted to understand the mindset, the mentality, and forecast the behavior of someone like a Christopher Steele, all you had to do was watch a movie or read the book, like Tailor of Panama.
He did the same for explaining how, and to a large degree, major pharmaceutical companies, others, treated poor populations around the world as human guinea pigs to experiment on.
He did it through his fictional narrative called The Constant Gardener, that was also turned into a film.
Let's take a look at clip number 12, which gives a summation of what that film was about, which is about towards the end of the film, and explains why maybe people in Africa and other parts of the world second-guess in question, people in white lab coats promising them solutions by wanting to put a needle in their arm.
Music by Ben Thede
Music by Ben Thede
If we have lost in Justin and Tessa two valued friends, the diplomatic community has lost a true gentleman. - Courteous, self-effacing, large of heart.
That he chose to take his own life in the same remote spot where Tessa met her tragic death is a sad reflection of his tormented state of mind, but also typical of his discretion.
He would not have had us troubled.
He would not have had us inconvenienced.
Nothing in his life became him.
Like the leaving.
I have chosen a text I know Justin and Tessa would approve.
It's an epistle.
Non-canonical.
My dear Sandy, your naivety is beyond belief.
Knowing our arrangements with KDH and 3B's, you send me this half-baked report by some bleeding-heart diplomatic wife and her black lover and ask me to take action.
The only action required, apart from shredding the thing, is to keep a tighter rein on your resident harlot.
I want to know what she does, where she goes, whom she meets.
The issue here is deniability.
If nobody told us Di Prapsa was causing death, we can't be held responsible.
But, my dear Sandy, should it ever become known that we closed our eyes to the deaths, none of us would survive the scandal.
I still have great hopes of you, my love to Gloria, your sincerely, Fern.
It's a bizarre sort of suicide.
His body bore no fewer than eight bullet wounds from three different guns, none of which was the one found in his hand.
So who has got away with murder?
Not, of course, the British government.
They merely covered up, as one does, the offensive corpses.
Though not literally.
That was done by person or persons unknown.
So who has committed murder?
Not, of course, the highly respectable firm of KDH Pharmaceutical, which has enjoyed record profits this quarter.
and has now licensed ZimbaMed of Harare to continue testing Dipraxa in Africa.
No, there are no murders in Africa.
Only regrettable deaths And from those deaths, we derive the benefits of civilization.
Benefits we can afford so easily.
Because those lives were bought so cheaply.
Thank you.
I know all your secrets, Ken.
I think I understand you now.
I know all your secrets.
You want me to come home?
But I am home.
I am home.
Mr. Quayle. Tess.
Tess.
Why is the only solution that some in the political class are recommending a needle in the arm or a chip under the skin?
Is that really the solution to this pandemic?
Maybe something other than an economic shutdown.
Maybe something other than the suspension of our constitutional civil liberties.
Maybe we shouldn't forfeit what took two centuries to build in two days or two weeks or two months or at all.
And maybe the solution isn't necessarily a chip under the skin or a needle in the arm.
Maybe there's other solutions that we should be looking at, ones that protect and enshrine our constitutional liberty and protect the public economy that helps make it a functional reality.
Now we're going to go to your calls as part of the jury, and we appreciate you calling in, and let's start with Jake in California.
Hey, how's it going?
Hey, how are you?
Good, good.
Go ahead.
So I just wanted to get some information for some people that may be listening, too.
So I work for one of the largest import-export companies in at least the state, definitely, one in the country.
I don't think people fully understand how much pain that we're in store for.
I mean, if people aren't sure, they can look up, they can just Google, some of this information's public, a lot of it they hold close to best, but like, you Google Port of Los Angeles container statistics, you'll see.
So you can see the numbers right now are down, say from China, are down 26, 27%.
Uh, in America, I mean, that's all we do is just import stuff.
That is what stocks our shelves.
That's what fills our, everything we shop is imported.
They just put the numbers up for March, which was surprising.
I didn't think they were going to release them.
They actually just scrubbed that data.
Originally showed negative 37% import.
So February had negative 23, which is still up.
I don't think people fully understand how much pain we're in store for coming up.
Yeah, thanks for calling in.
No doubt about it whatsoever.
You're seeing in the fundamental metrics, when you look at the underlying numbers, whether you're looking at what's happening in the repo markets and the overnight debt markets, or you're looking at things like port activity.
So, for example, to our caller's point, to Jake's point, the way they were tracking whether China was actually reopening their economy or not, whether they were lying about that or being truthful about that, is with satellite imagery of their port activity.
Because the port activity tells you, are they back manufacturing goods?
Are they back exporting goods?
Are they back up and active?
Or is it partially a hoax?
There, China was, within a month after they did the shutdown in Wuhan, they were back up to full freight.
They were back up to the same level they had been beforehand or close to it.
And that was a sign that China had figured out something about this virus that the Western world did not figure out yet.
And that China either had a solution or recognized it would take a typical virus path of running into a wall and doing a bell curve.
And China instead decided to use their misinformation to the world as an opportunity to seize economic power by replacing the U.S.
and the West in the supply chains in ways that the United States did after World War II that helped lead to a 30-year American boom economically.
Well, it took Europe and Asia almost 30 years to recover, both in Japan and Western Europe.
So China may be employing the same strategy here, that even if they weren't behind the pandemic, even if they didn't push it, the effect of their policies has been to utilize it for their profit.
And that's where if we don't turn on our own economy quickly, we pose a substantial risk and danger of not only economic depression, occurring here in the United States, but of letting China seize an extraordinary and unprecedented edge in the economy of the world.
Thanks, Jake, for calling.
We appreciate that.
Let's go to Bob in Canada.
I just want to go back to what you're saying coming out of the break about the juries.
We've lost our simple functioning jury system since World War II when we went to basically a supplantation of our legal system with UCC code, corporatism, and money infusions into how the law works through risk management and money buys risk management.
People take payoffs and no one goes to jail anymore and there's no accountability through Courts, because the juries are basically non-functional.
What the current legal system seems to do is go back with stare decisis and ultra-rays, and then it takes a lot of money just to buy justice.
It's all been monetized.
We know back in 1955, the book The Power Elite, we saw this incestuous triangle in D.C.
operating, even back in 1955.
And it looks like that's just grown, we're now 70 years later, and is it any wonder we've got what we've got?
And I was wondering what your thoughts were about devolving back to a more simple legal system like the Stannery Courts that are still functioning in Cornwall, or a more simplified, accountable legal system that gets the money out of the whole bread and butter.
So yeah, thanks for your question.
There's no doubt that there's been a decline of the power of the jury in the American legal world and political society.
So to give some context, historically people in the jury came together from the entire community and publicly decided a range of subjects, which not only included what happened factually, but also what the appropriate civil punishment or criminal punishment or remedy should be.
Our bail system used to be people willing to stand in the shoes of the person accused and be a personal physical surety and actually doing any time for the crime accused if that person didn't show up for trial.
So we used to have a system that was much more interdependent and truly little d democratic.
What has happened is two things.
First, the legal system has tried to co-opt the power of the jury by elevating the power of the judiciary and often monopolizing the judiciary at the expense of the jury in areas like criminal sentencing, for example, in areas like a jury's power to determine the law itself.
People forget Patrick Henry's famous speech before a jury, before he ever made it to the delegates at the Virginia Constitutional Convention.
He made it one of the famous tax acquittals and one of the most famous criminal acquittals in the history of the country was not in fact an acquittal.
Patrick Henry's give me liberty or give me death speech was part of a closing argument that he made on behalf of an individual charged with not paying the tobacco tax.
The jury found the individual guilty, but because the jury had the power to determine the fine and the punishment, they only assigned the lowest possible fine, which was a $1 fine.
That helped revolutionize and electrify the revolution across the country during colonial America.
And it was the power of the jury to make that difference.
That power stayed with the American public for some time after the Constitution was put into place and the Bill of Rights became part of that Constitution.
But then what happened is over the decades, increasingly, the courts and the government tried to encroach upon the power of the jury and remove that from the power of the jury to make the determinations as to matters of law, as well as the matters of punishment that should be appropriate in a criminal case.
In the same context, increasingly and unfortunately, courts have reduced the power of the jury functionally within our legal system by granting more summary judgments and summary adjudication in civil cases, by granting more dismissals and just discouraging and deterring the use of juries where possible.
And encroaching upon the jury's power on a constant and continuous basis to such a degree that increasingly juries have less power than they've ever had before.
Less role in our legal system practically speaking and functionally speaking than they ever had before.
And that ultimately undermines little d democracy and the trust in our legal system.
And it's why we should re-examine some of those assumptions and re-empower juries to have the full scope and scale of powers that our founders anticipated and intended.
So thanks for calling.
Let's go to Judy from Florida.
Hi, thank you for taking my call, sir.
I just believe that if Trump did a 180 and actually became the maverick that we voted into office and threw off a lot of what is being thrown around as far as numbers of deaths, the curves that are taking place, And at the end of April, he keeps his word and turns the economy back on and allows people their constitutional rights again.
He's going to be a champion and he's going to win in a landslide.
And he's going to have, I think, Democrats biting at his heels regardless.
And it's going to be ugly, but that doesn't mean he's not going to get an office.
The question is whether or not he actually understands how deeply he's been hamstrung by Fauci and Birx.
Oh, absolutely.
You're precisely correct.
I think he's starting to get that, but that's where, again, the power of the audience, the power of his base to reach him.
Because as many of his allies have advised him over the last several years, there's nobody in that White House that really can either parallel his instincts or even has his best interest at heart.
And because of that, That's how people like Fauci, that's how the deep state operators, that's how people like Birx, these long-standing administrative state operators.
Like sometimes you have people say, well, deep state is some sort of conspiratorial phrase.
Actually, it's originated in the doctrine of the dual state that an editor of The Economist came up with more than a century ago to simply explain the phenomenon of governments being not responsive to the public or the people anymore.
Even in democratic societies, early societies that purport to be constitutionally democratic societies.
The doctrine grew in the 1930s and 1940s as German emigres tried to explain and understand the rise of fascism and communism and how it came about.
And in part they believed that the rise of the administrative state, this dual state, This part of the government that was no longer responsive or respectful of the American people or the people in their particular countries, whether it was Germany, Italy, France or Russia or other places, facilitated the rise of fascism and facilitated the risk and threat of communism.
The that doctrine further became developed in the 1960s and 1970s, originally and initially by the left, to explain the power the national security establishment was continually seizing.
The one that Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech in 1961, talking about this interconnected complex of people within the national security establishment, the defense contractor world, And high-ranking law enforcement people like the J. Edgar Hoovers of the world who are corrupting our federal law enforcement by politicizing it and protecting certain groups at the expense of others.
And you doing things like COINTELPRO to spy on our own citizens.
People like the CIA using MKULTRA to experiment on people like a young Ted Kaczynski who would then become the Unabomber.
So that corruption of our governmental systems is what led them to call the dual state the deep state.
When the dual state becomes deeply entrenched, when this administrative state becomes immune from democratic checks and public will, what do you get?
Well, you get something like what we have now.
You get a pandemic panic that is disproportionate and disparate to the concern, that tends to mitigate and reduce questioning that should take place.
You get them giving bad advice about masks or malarial drugs.
You get them reversing themselves on their own models.
You get them censoring or suppressing any dissident information about people like Bill Gates.
You get them pursuing an agenda that suppresses not only civil liberties, but completely shuts down our public economy.
That's how this reality comes about.
This reality comes about when the ordinary person and the everyday person no longer has real power over our own government, but instead the administrative state, the dual state, the deep state, because that's the most apt terms for how deeply entrenched this dual state is.
And this just happens to apply in the public health context.
That's why it's extraordinary.
You see people like Fauci, people like Birx, other prominent people, people pushing the model like Professor Murray for the University of Washington and the Institute connected there too, amazingly all end up connected in one way, shape or form to a one single billionaire like Bill Gates, who was never elected at all.
He has simply replaced what the defense industry was in the early 1960s and late 1950s that Eisenhower was warning about.
He's just the same thing in the public health context.
And he's managed to achieve and attain an objective that almost no one could before.
It turned out terrorism wasn't enough for us to suspend our constitutional liberties.
It turned out fear of a foreign enemy was not enough for us to suspend our constitutional liberties and forfeit two centuries of American history of freedom.
It turns out that crime on the streets wasn't enough for us to forfeit our constitutional liberties and two centuries of freedom.
It turned out a pandemic was precisely the magic token to do so.
It's time to second guess.
It's time to question.
It's time to doubt.
It's time to contest.
It's time to be influential in the public debate.
So thanks for participating.
Thanks for watching.
▲
Export Selection