Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 8, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:46:49

20200408_Wed_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to another edition of American Countdown.
	As we are literally a minute from midnight on America's constitutional experiment of civil liberties for all.
	And in a public economy to protect all.
	Tonight, resolved, that medical martial law is just as dangerous as military martial law.
	Today, we basically face a medical martial law that has had the medical establishment, the pharmacological establishment, the administrative state establishment, simply replace the defense industry establishment in dictating public policy around the globe.
	Including, in particular, the United States.
	Despite the constitutional liberties that our founders set up to make sure this could never happen.
	Our founders were founded a country in a crisis, were intimately aware of viruses and pandemics, and yet refused to allow any public health or national emergency exception to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
	But tell that to almost any mayor, governor, town manager in power today, where, according to published reports, 90% of Americans now live under some form of house arrest.
	They have nice little phrases for it in terms of stay-at-home orders or the rest.
	But look at the definition and application of martial law.
	What do they say typically comes with martial law?
	What typically accompanies martial law?
	We would expect to see curfew orders.
	We would expect to see house arrest orders.
	We would expect to see restrictions on travel.
	We would expect to receive dictates on what you could buy and what you could not buy, where you could go and where you could not go, what you could do for work and what you could not do for work.
	Items listed as either essential or non-essential.
	We would expect in a martial law environment to have to do papers, please, before you go between states, before maybe even you go outside of your own home.
	Isn't that precisely what is happening to 90% of Americans today in most cities, most counties, in most states of our union where most of the population resides?
	How is this any less martial law simply because it's medical martial law rather than military martial law?
	The question is, doesn't that raise significant constitutional questions?
	Particularly, have we sacrificed in two weeks what it took two centuries for America to build?
	Should we allow it to continue, unmitigated, unabated?
	Or is it time to start the fight back?
	Are some people, in fact, doing precisely that?
	In the bottom half of the hour, we'll be talking to Aviva Frye, who, about the various lawsuits that he's been examining and reviewing as a Canadian counsel, talking about U.S.
	legal matters on YouTube and elsewhere for many years, and one of the most popular YouTube vloggers in the world.
	So we'll be talking to him about these cases.
	What the, can you sue China?
	Can you sue various governments?
	Can you sue insurance companies for denial of coverage?
	Can you sue under or be exempt from suit under various clause provisions because you're not able to perform, say, a rental or lease contract due to something beyond your control?
	These are some of the legal issues implicated, including questions of constitutional law that we'll be discussing and debating tonight.
	But first, let's go back to an update, another update of the panic from this pandemic that still remains more panic than plague, as the data increasingly shows that the Bill Gates-backed modelers were wrong, that they overhyped this virus for reasons maybe of their own political purposes or their patrons' self-interest and his own political and policy agenda.
	So today, for example, the lead agency, the lead institute, the lead professor, whose models have convinced or tried to convince the president why the shutdown was justified and warranted and necessary, where the president was basically threatened that millions would die unless he went along with the agenda of Fauci and others, and these various Democratic politicians across the country who
	Use the same data and information as the basis and foundation for their extraordinary exceptional shutdown orders.
	Well today, what was a little more than 2 million just a few weeks ago, now if we look at chart number one, it's all the way down to 60,000.
	So, by the way, 60,000 is about the average.
	And this is for the entire length of period of time of this virus.
	So for the entire length of time, the estimated amount now is that only 60,000 people will die.
	And understand that this virus was assuming hundreds of thousands would die with all of the shutdown orders.
	And was assuming millions without it.
	And now it's recognizing that all of its data was based on faulty and false assumptions.
	And now, 60,000 over six months, seven months?
	That's basically a flu season.
	That's what that is.
	Remember everybody who was made fun of for questioning whether or not this would be worse than the flu?
	Well, how ironic would it be if it turns out that, in fact, this virus is no more deadly than the flu?
	That's where the data got it wrong.
	There's more examples of that we can get into but let's look at what our politicians are considering and look at chart number three.
	If we look at Governor Cuomo has been doing a report and in this particular report he usually puts data up next to his face and instead he's already telling people in advance should we really return to normal or should we achieve a new normal?
	And we'll get into what he means by a new normal.
	If we look at an article today printed by Politico, we'll find they go through the details of all of the different rights and laws that Governor Cuomo has suspended within weeks of this process going through.
	He's achieved a new record in the state of New York for the number of laws that are no longer applicable and no longer in force.
	And what, here it is, here's every law and regulation that Governor Cuomo has suspended during the virus.
	And look at what some of these laws are and ask yourself, does this have anything to do with protection or prevention of the virus?
	For example, Governor Cuomo has suspended a law mandating that child care providers for little kids undergo criminal background checks before they're hired.
	That's now suspended.
	So it's okay to take care of someone's kid if you have a criminal record like maybe for child abuse, for example.
	in the state of New York.
	How does that relate to this virus?
	Another law that's been suspended is how state contracts are awarded.
	Let's not worry too much about what's going on there, right?
	Particularly during this time when there's a flood of federal and state cash coming into the system.
	Restrictions on appointing public officers, such as residency requirements and the rest, are being suspended.
	The revolving door ban against lobbyists going from inside and outside government back and forth, large parts of that have now been suspended.
	How does that relate to the pandemic?
	How does that relate to coronavirus?
	The anti-bribery statute has now been partially suspended in the state of New York.
	The ban on giving gifts to officials.
	Apparently somehow this relates if you have a virus or you're worried about a virus as a public official, the first thing you need to do is make sure that people can give you money and give you gifts.
	Apparently, according to the governor of the state of New York.
	That was essential in this emergency power to suspend the laws limiting bans on or giving or imposing bans on giving gifts to officials.
	You can meet without a quorum.
	Building codes are being suspended.
	That's always good for developers with political friends and allies.
	That's just a few examples and illustrations of the kind of laws being suspended under the guise and disguise of this pandemic policy response.
	If we go further into what's happening to the economy as part of this, let's look at chart number five.
	Here the World Trade Organization estimates that the global trade as part of the economy in 2020 may fall as much as 32%.
	That's the kind of disaster and debacle they're predicting and that they don't predict a recovery even two years from now in terms of that loss that they expect to see happen.
	Now notably, we're clearly seeing a decline in the virus itself as the models continue to be wrong, as we talked about at the top.
	And let's look at one of the ways you can really test this is by looking at Google search data.
	Looking at people who are searching for various symptoms of the virus, looking for the kind of things that accompany the virus.
	And if we look at chart number six, We'll see that when that really peaked this peaked over a couple of weeks ago and it's been going down ever since.
	So this actually forecast the Google Trends search data forecast and foreshadowed that in fact this virus did not have the epidemic infection contagion rate being projected by the doomsday modelers.
	Instead, of course, we still have headlines like this chart, this headline from Drudge earlier yesterday of the pink moon linked to the end of days omen.
	That's the kind of sort of talk that's been going around in the media circles and media cycles.
	But it's not as if this was totally unpredictable, as I tweeted out back on March 13th.
	The exponential growth of the coronavirus ceases at a certain stage.
	This was predictable.
	This was available.
	As I commented back in March 22nd, the evidence rebuts the claims of endless exponential growth of the disease that the entire premise of the pandemic panic logic depends upon.
	The daily growth rate simply was not supported by the data if you dug into what the data was really showing.
	Now, of course, part of the issue is That what's happening at the health officials is they're reporting as deaths, any death that has any kind of correlation with the coronavirus, even if in fact coronavirus is not at all the medical or proximate cause of death.
	Let's look at what Dr. Birx admitted to yesterday in video number 18 where she was asked, what's happening?
	Is CDC and these hospitals, are they just reporting deaths no matter whether the person actually died of the virus simply because either they had the virus at the time of death even though there's no actual causation role of the virus at the time they died?
	Or because they are simply assumed to have had the virus based on something about them in the estimation of the nurse and the doctor.
	And remember as we went over yesterday, federal funding is giving hospitals twice, triple, quadruple as much money if they label somebody dead that was uninsured from the virus than if they are labeled as dying from anything else.
	So everybody has a huge monetary motivation at this critical economic crunch time for hospitals in particular.
	and others that are responsible, local, city, county, and state governments that can be on the hook, depending on the nature of the hospital financial structure, all of them have a huge monetary motivation to blame the virus for the death.
	That's why we're probably not seeing honest, accurate data about whether or not there's been an actual increase in the mortality rate overall compared to past time periods and expected time periods.
	And we're seeing sudden declines in reported deaths from heart disease, reported deaths from influenza.
	All of a sudden, it seems like everything is just being shifted and attributed to the virus.
	Well, Dr. Birx confirmed that's exactly what's happening.
	Let's look at video 18.
	Dr. Fauci or Dr. Birx, can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they're characterized?
	So I think in this country we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks.
	Prior to that when there wasn't testing in January and February that's a very different situation and unknown.
	There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition And let's say the virus calls you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem.
	Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death.
	Right now we're still recording it and we'll, I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection, the intent is right now that those, if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.
	Are you, can you be sure, I mean you hear from coroners that that's not necessarily the case.
	Are you sure, how can you be confident about that and is there any concern that it skews the...
	So there you have Dr. Birx admitting this has become official policy to basically attribute, to make the death number look as scary as possible, as frightening and terrifying as possible.
	So not only are they removing the context of comparing it to all mortality rate in general, removing the context of comparing it to the flu in past years or even the current year, removing the context of whether or not this is in fact a cause and effect relationship, they're going further and just basically green lighting it to the entire country.
	And that's sort of reminiscent of what could be chart number 18 as a popular meme that's going around.
	And I've been told, you know, you should not talk about Bill Gates.
	Well, here's Dr. Birx and there's Laura Birx.
	And who is Laura Birx?
	She's the deputy director of strategy, planning and management at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	So the idea that there's no Gates connections to the various public officials involved is simply not something that's credible to believe.
	And increasingly, it has been Gates's people that have been running public policy in this country.
	It is a medical establishment coup of our government, effectively.
	This is medical martial law disguised as a public health emergency in ways that are not being met to have narrowly tailored remedies for a compelling public interest in the scope and scale of what our politicians are doing.
	Now let's compare some data, which at this point is preliminary data because we don't have all of the reporting in, but at least initial data suggests there has been an overall decline in the death rates.
	If we look at chart number 17, we go to 2020, and we look at pneumonia deaths and influenza deaths and old deaths, and we see that for week 12, compared to past years, we're seeing a substantial decline.
	Now, some people are predicting that there'll be a catch-up and there's some lagging data.
	Maybe that can partially explain this, but not all of it.
	And at a minimum, what we are not seeing is a rise in the overall mortality rate.
	So if, in fact, this virus was disproportionately killing people who would not otherwise have been vulnerable to death, then we should be seeing that.
	It's what's called excess death or excess fatalities in the medical literature.
	We're seeing no evidence of that occurring yet.
	Now by contrast, let's look at chart number 12 and we'll look at one of the charts that the IMHG is Dr. Murray.
	That is the institute funded and established in large part by Bill Gates and Gates Foundation.
	And this is the chart and these are the models that led everybody to panic in the public policy arena and that sort of coerced President Trump into his actions.
	And if we look at chart 12, we see what the model widely overestimating the number of hospitalizations.
	That the estimate, and remember these estimates were done at a time period anticipating all of the shutdown.
	So it was anticipating these hospitalizations would be required even with the shutdown.
	And as you can see, the numbers were way, way, way off.
	Because the real number is that little, little chart at the bottom.
	All the rest has turned out to be completely wrong.
	His estimates, he assumed endless exponential growth in ways that was never going to occur, that other leading scholars and other leading analysts and experts were saying were not going to occur, that history said was not going to occur.
	It was ignored by people who may have had a policy agenda or a political patron pushing for a different objective than what was actually good public health.
	Now, there's also this discussion that maybe the reason why there's been a decline is solely because the lockdown worked.
	Well, aside from the fact that these models presume the lockdown, so that cannot explain the model's failures, on top of that, there are plenty of countries and states that have not imposed a lockdown.
	And let's look at chart number 13.
	And there's a bunch of lines on that chart and I'll explain them for you.
	What these are is they went and compared all the charts, including the national rate of the infection rate, and looked at New York, looked at California, looked at Florida, looked at Tennessee, looked at Iowa, looked at Arkansas, and looked at Sweden.
	Because many of these states were either late to impose a shutdown, or in some context, so they're comparing states like New York and California that were early to shut down, versus Florida that only shut down later, and Tennessee that only shut down later, versus Iowa and Arkansas that never shut down, and Sweden that's never shut down.
	Now if we look at those charts, look what they all have in common.
	They're all almost identical.
	This virus took its own path, which is what some of us were predicting a month ago.
	And it was always going to take its own path because history said that was going to happen.
	The Diamond Princess data said that was going to happen.
	Professor Lumet said that was going to happen.
	Professor Yanita suggested it was going to happen.
	What had happened in Wuhan suggested it was going to happen.
	And in fact, that's precisely what's happening.
	The shutdown has had no beneficial effect whatsoever if we are to look at states that have not shut down, seeing the exact same outcomes as states that did.
	And these are states that are right next to each other, like Tennessee and Arkansas, like Florida.
	And comparing to Florida reacting later compared to California, a big state, Florida even having an older population and yet seeing the same rate of decline no matter when they impose the shutdown.
	So the places that haven't imposed a shutdown seeing the same outcomes as those that did impose a shutdown, people that imposed a shutdown much later, and a partial shutdown like Florida seeing the same outcomes as other states.
	So there's simply no evidence that the shutdown is having any positive salutary effect whatsoever in reducing the scope and scale of this virus.
	Just as there is increasing evidence the virus is not really a threat.
	To the degree to which they said this was not the next plague.
	This was a severe danger but by no means worthy or warranting suspension of our constitutional liberties or shutting down our public economy.
	If we go back to the Spanish Flu, 1918 and 1919, there's also some false data and information circulating that suggested those places shut down.
	But actually, if we look at the history of it, there's an influenza encyclopedia you can go and look at.
	There's also articles from the National Geographic that publish studies that have been done over time.
	And if we go to chart number 11, what we'll see on chart number 11 is these are just all the different states.
	Now the states aren't listed there, but what you'll see is a lot of the same patterns, including on the third row and the fourth row, that a lot of curves that the virus just seemed to take a certain path, no matter what a city did, and that many of these cities achieved the same flattened rate, even though none of them None of them shut down their entire economy.
	Unemployment actually went down during this time period, not up.
	And none of them suspended their constitutional liberties to the size and scale we're seeing today.
	As we also see in chart number 19 in other countries around the world, such as Switzerland, the same decline is taking place, no matter what policies they have put into place.
	Now if we look at some of the impact, the economic impact of what's taking place.
	We look at things like chart number 16 and this talks, this tracks electricity use.
	So it tells us what kind of real sort of underlying economic activity is taking place.
	As you can see it is plummeting at a record level.
	If we look at chart number 10.
	We need to look at the unemployment rate.
	We're seeing an unemployment rate right now that that rate they're talking about way back in the 20s and 30s.
	That's what they're anticipating we're going to be seeing within the next couple of weeks.
	So that's the situation today.
	The models have been wrong.
	The doomers and the gloomers have been wrong.
	They have shut down our economy unnecessarily.
	They have suspended our constitutional liberties without justification, often with no proportionality compared to the threat that they said was present and often The remedy had nothing to do with the threat.
	What does suspension of criminal background checks for childcare workers have to do with a pandemic?
	What is suspension of anti-bribery laws have to do with a pandemic?
	What are the suspension of transparency laws have to do with the pandemic?
	Now the while in fact, we're seeing the various aspects of COVID deaths being sort of over potentially over counted.
	Other countries are taking already talking about a resurrection after Easter.
	If we look at here from Business Insider, Austria and Denmark, as Sweden and to some degree Switzerland already has, are planning to lift their lockdowns quickly, particularly right after Easter as they're seeing that the data doesn't support the lockdowns in continuing.
	And they see places like South Korea and to some extent Singapore and Taiwan and Japan achieve good public policy benefits in terms of the pandemic reduction without shutting down.
	It is useful to go back and talk about how cities flattened the curve after the 2018 pandemic.
	And what you do is when you go through the National Geographic article, you find that what they did was ban gatherings, close schools, recommend forms of social distancing.
	But what they did not do, has closed all of civil society or shut down their economy.
	You can look it up for yourself in an article at the JAMA Network for Medical Articles.
	The headline is, Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by U.S. Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic, popularly or colloquially known as the Spanish Flu.
	And what happened was there were school closures and public gathering bans for a median duration of four weeks, with effective social distancing measures that focused on isolating the ill and quarantining those they suspected of being ill.
	There was no broad mass house arrest.
	There was no complete suspension of constitutional liberties.
	There was no shutdown of the public economy.
	Additional articles being printed today in a publication called Stat Modeling at Columbia University goes through in details the scientific and mathematical reasons why the models were wrong, about how you can't take the models seriously for a range of reasons, and then what they should have been tracking was the decreasing rate of the increase of deaths.
	In other words, the death rate would decline once it hit a certain peak, and they mis-evaluated that from the inception.
	Another article from marketticker.org, which talk about how the lockdowns did nothing.
	And it talks about that chart we mentioned earlier, where if you compare comparable states, comparable countries over a comparable timeframe, you see no difference between them in the effect of the infection rate of the virus, regardless of what mitigation measurement they imposed.
	Just turned that basic methods of social distancing were sufficient without shutting down the economy or suspending constitutional liberty.
	Now let's talk about some of the economic effects of what's going on.
	As we saw earlier, dairy farmers are having to dump out their milks in their backyards or in the streets.
	Well, the same thing is now happening to vegetables and fruit markets.
	As this article from Florida details, everything from zucchini to squash has been ripened and is now rotting.
	And so farmers are plowing over or leaving their food to rot.
	This includes, you know, from the leafy greens in California to the dairy farmers in Vermont.
	The one farmer refers to it as a catastrophe.
	Because of the closure of the food service market and theme parks and restaurants, these folks are going out of business and they say, the article says, the loss has created a domino effect because this is the one period of time for harvest for some of these crops.
	They can never recover them again.
	They may never be able to recover at all.
	They refer to it as devastating for farmers.
	Remember, it only took a dust bowl or two for the entire farming agricultural economy of the Southern Midwest to be so displacing that it led to the country music singers of Bakersfield a generation later.
	The Fed has also acknowledged this.
	Fed report small business sector highly vulnerable to the virus.
	Even the best managed small businesses are in a very vulnerable position, according to the report.
	Only 10% can operate normally on savings alone for two months.
	They're going to have to cut staff and pay.
	They're going to have to try to borrow when they're in fact declining interest ability to borrow.
	In addition to that, they report the National Federation of Independent Businesses Reported its small business optimism index booked a record decline this past month.
	So the ability for mindset to matter over money is increasingly diminishing as our economy collapses under this pandemic policy response induced by Bill Gates backers in the White House and in the Democratic governors and mayors positions across the country.
	Former Fed Chairman Bernanke similarly does not see a V-shaped U.S.
	recovery coming anytime soon.
	So they often will use different letters to symbol what kind of recovery economic recovery they think can occur.
	So there's a lot of people saying increasingly this will look like more like an L, which means you have a flat line for a while until you ever start to get back up.
	A V is when you just bounce right back up.
	That's what people have been promising the president.
	More and more evidence that that is simply not likely to occur the longer this shutdown lasts.
	The Fed's another official connected to the Fed admitted today that the consumers have suffered a body blow in the public economy and they may not recover.
	While the Fed admits that largely they've been focused on the commercial paper markets, the municipal markets, the investment grade debt markets, the asset-backed security markets, the treasury market, the mortgage-backed security market, where spreads still remain dangerously elevated, they realize the big problem is going to be what happens with consumers when this economy starts back up, given both the supply and demand side shocks that have occurred.
	And as some of us pointed out, you can't have a good medical system without a good economic system.
	Public health depends on a public economy.
	Well today, as even Vox is admitting, hospitals are laying off workers in the middle of the pandemic.
	In fact, because of the economic crisis, it is driving physician practices and now hospitals to furlough staff, layoff staff, layoff surgeons, nurses, doctors, en masse.
	The Medical University of South Carolina is laying people off.
	Essentia Health, the major medical system in Minnesota, is laying people off.
	Cookville Regional Medical Center in Tennessee is laying people off.
	Boston Medical Center in Massachusetts is going to be cutting or furloughing at least 10% of its staff.
	Trinity Health is doing so in Philadelphia.
	Mercy Health is doing so in Ohio.
	Hospitals in Virginia and Kentucky are doing it.
	And that's just the beginning.
	When you come back after the break we'll be talking with Viva Fry about are there any legal remedies to what's happening to these public policy panic decisions that have induced our economic depression.
	So come back after the break and we'll talk with Viva Frye about what legal remedies may exist for you and for businesses across the country.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	In a minute we'll be live with Viva Frye discussing what some of the legal remedies or legal issues will be in this extraordinary environment.
	It has been an extraordinary environment for anybody who's a legal analyst or legal commentator as we've seen everything from impeachment to government shutdowns around the world.
	Things we have either rarely seen or in this context never seen in the United States of America and in parts of Canada where Viva is from as well.
	So, but let's go through a couple of headlines and one's a useful one.
	The government might soon be deciding what its items are essential and which ones just aren't for you.
	According to this article printed by Zero Hedge, various government agencies and authorities are looking at deciding what is essential and what's not that you can buy even at the few stores that are left open.
	They begin to cease in-person sales of any item they deem non-essential.
	Clearly people have been reading up on their Orwellian lexicon of language in cases of a pandemic or crisis.
	Garden supplies and seeds may no longer be available.
	Things like beauty care, skin care may no longer be available.
	Various forms of, in fact, we'll talk with Aviva, there's talks in Ontario and Canada that they may close all hardware stores and limit purchases only to curbside pickup.
	You may not even be able to buy fabric to make masks, those masks that people like.
	Actually, now it turns out maybe really were good for you, after all the people in the white lab coat said it wasn't good for you, which reminds us that we encourage everybody to go to our sponsor while you still can.
	So go to InfoWarsStore.com where you can buy things like skin cream, where you can buy things like toothpaste, They're still considered essential for you and essential for us, but who knows how long they'll be considered essential in your local community before they ban them, prescribe them, or prohibit them.
	So as well as it's still legal to get, while you're still able to get it, and you're able to still get it on discount before it sells out, go to InfoWarsStore.com, one of the few places in the entire country, or right now in the entire globe, willing to sponsor programs like this one to provide independent voices so that you, the people, can decide, listening in the public square, what ideas you think are the best.
	If we go into what's happening to businesses across the country, right before we go to Viva, let's just get to some of the headlines of what some of the legal issues and ramifications are.
	Business insurance is declaring they will not cover coronavirus closures, even for people who had insurance, including umbrella policies.
	An umbrella is supposed to be protecting you from any kind of rainy day.
	That was particularly intended to cover unexpected events such as business interruption from government shutdowns.
	But what are the insurance companies saying?
	Oh no, really we're going to blame the virus as an act of God and even though really you shut down because of the government ordering you to, we're going to decide that that no longer applies even though your insurance policy seems to say just that.
	There's police officers who are busy filling their helmets with water and throwing it over a couple's beach barbecue because that's the greatest threat we have to civil society today is those folks out there barbecuing on the beach.
	Then we have GNC.
	GNC is talking about it's going to shutter 900 stores and may be filing bankruptcy in the next year or before the year is out according to a publication in the public health arena.
	Meanwhile, what are our civil rights lawyers doing?
	Well, they're busy filing lawsuits to make sure inmates get released from the Miami-Dade jails.
	They're suing ICE to make sure those detained as dangerous and for potential detention and deportation that they're released as quickly as possible.
	The coronavirus threatens civil liberties, but what civil liberties are they looking at?
	They're looking at being able to make sure that the Chicago Democratic Party can harvest your votes through voting by mail, make sure abortion clinics are wide open, and things of that nature.
	Yet somehow they just can't seem to get around to suing for ordinary people who simply want to leave their home on their own time, on their own dime.
	Then there's nice articles like this one from JustSecurity.org who wants to let everybody know, don't bother suing China for coronavirus.
	Already discouraging and dissuading people from filing suits against actual culpable parties.
	Viva did a good YouTube summary of a recent class action suit filed against China that challenges and questions that assumption that they can or cannot be sued.
	Meanwhile, a man was handcuffed for playing t-ball with his family during a pandemic.
	Hopefully Viva's been careful and isn't playing any t-ball in his backyard.
	Now some people are starting to seek legal remedy.
	Downtown Propers 21 sues for coronavirus insurance coverage.
	So there's going to be a lot of companies that don't simply lay down for this.
	There's additional articles about insurers trying to dodge coverage and dodge responsibility in Oregon and across the country.
	One of my favorite suits has been filed in Illinois by the great Billy Goat Tavern, made famous by John Belushi in some of his Saturday Night Live skits.
	Also, suits being joined by people like Thomas Keller, owner of the French Laundry, also one of the great restaurants in the world, and the Bouchon Bistro, which is also another great restaurant.
	They're bringing suits because they are challenging these insurance companies' denial and refusal to compensate for things that they specifically try to be insured for.
	Then there's issues of whether coronavirus is at what they call a force majeure.
	I'm not sure if I'm pronunciating the second word right.
	Viva may have a better read on that than I. But whether it excuses performance of lease contracts, as a lot of restaurant owners and others are trying to claim and may legitimately be claiming.
	Force majeure basically relates to, some people call it an act of God.
	What it really means is a superior force outside of yourself that could not be reasonably anticipated by you precludes you from performance under your contract.
	You can have a right in that circumstance to be able to step back out of your contract.
	But of course we have Bloomberg Law and other ABA journals saying lawsuits over quarantines are unlikely to succeed, experts say, trying to discourage the mere idea of bringing suits for ordinary people.
	It's okay to sue for inmates, it's okay to sue for abortion clinics, it's just not okay to sue for ordinary everyday people, apparently, according to some of our leading legal analysts.
	People with disabilities are properly bringing suit over the rationing of care that's occurring in some nursing homes and other facilities.
	There's a complete guide to class action lawsuits and Amazon's being sued.
	There's various voter groups suing.
	Most of the suits Lyft and Uber drivers are suing.
	You have a lot of suits by people who are challenging whether their work restrictions are okay under the circumstances or whether they're safe from work.
	Often what you're not seeing is a lot of people bring suits that challenge the government shutdowns in the first place.
	That may be because so much of the legal profession has been captured by one political or partisan cause to the left more so than the rest.
	Let's go to Viva and talk about some of the wide-ranging lawsuits that we haven't seen any version or variation of.
	You can find Viva on Twitter at TheVivaFry.
	You can find him on YouTube where he has usually a daily or a couple of days a week, various commentary on a wide range of legal topics and legal issues.
	Does a very fair and balanced job.
	One of the most popular vloggers in the world for good cause.
	He does fair, independent analysis that isn't blinded by any partisan perspective.
	Just gives an informative, fun, engaging, interactive way that's accessible to people who don't necessarily have a legal background or know the law.
	So I highly recommend it.
	I've been on his blog on his vlog multiple times and is a great guy and is doing great work during this very unique circumstance where he's currently effectively under house arrest with his wonderful children up in Ontario.
	How you doing?
	I'm doing good myself, Robert.
	So how is it up there right now?
	How many weeks have you effectively been under house arrest up there?
	So I'm in Quebec, we are going on week four now, and we're going to finish week four this Friday.
	And it's, it's intense.
	I mean, we're home with three kids, two of whom are following Zoom school classes from Monday to Friday.
	The third one is too young.
	So he's driving everybody nuts throughout the day.
	And, you know, we're just seeing where this goes.
	But I've been following it day in and day out.
	Obviously, I'm trying not to have every video on my channel be something related to the Coronavirus because I can only be so much value added but at some point I don't want to be contributing to some panic or misinformation.
	So I do some interesting stuff.
	The class action China lawsuit was actually kind of interesting because People have been asking me about that for the last month.
	And I was saying, yeah, no, I mean, reflexively saying, no, it's a silly idea even, because where's your venue?
	Where's your defendant going to be?
	What assets are you going to execute against?
	And then when I actually read the class action lawsuit, I say, it's interesting.
	I don't think any of my original opinion has changed, but if the allegations in that lawsuit can be proven true, things might change a little bit, if not legally, at the very least politically.
	No doubt about that whatsoever.
	We have potential lawsuits against China for issues related to whether they created the virus, issues related to whether the virus spread because of action or inaction that they took, whether they helped facilitate the spread of the virus here in the United States by public statements that they made in terms of attributing the cause originally to the United States military, things of that nature.
	There's actually some, and so there's that issue.
	There's can China be held legally accountable?
	There's also whether the president can sue them and the World Trade Organization for hoarding medical supplies.
	So there's all these different legal, there's governors who may be able to sue in ways that private citizens can't sue.
	Particularly governors, for example, who may have paid inflated prices for medical supplies that they effectively hoarded on the market.
	So there's all the legal issues that could impact China.
	There's all the legal issues that could impact various mayors, governors, sheriffs, town managers.
	You know, maybe there's going to be a public librarian do something crazy next.
	But the various government officials who have used this as a pretext to decide that, by golly, you know, Mel Brooks, every, it feels good to be the king.
	And it decides, you know, from his great movie, History of the World, Part One.
	that they're all getting to live experience and live time and enjoying it with great thrill.
	There's all the civil rights suits implications of that.
	Then there's the separate sort of legal issues that are sort of indirectly influenced and impacted by all of this, which includes insurance companies trying to deny coverage.
	Was it really the pandemic that caused the business to close down?
	Was it the government's order to close it down?
	Where is the proximate cause in that context?
	And then of course, there's all the, and I don't know if I'm pronunciating it right.
	I don't know if it's a French word.
	It looks like it should be a French word, a force majeure.
	Force majeure, which you're quite good.
	And it means superior force.
	It's a major force.
	Um, and I mean, it's going to be the argument, like my initial reflex when all this was happening was, okay, businesses are shutting down.
	Everybody has business interruption insurance.
	Unfortunately, typically, all insurance policies contain a rider excluding pandemics, specifically pandemics.
	And so it becomes the issue in law.
	In fact, when is it the pandemic?
	When is it the government order to be distinguished from the pandemic?
	And then when do you have a claim?
	The reality is, and I was thinking about this, even if the claims could be substantiated, you'll just put the insurance companies out of business because they will not have enough.
	If you succeed on the idea that it wasn't the pandemic under the, you know, the rider of exclusion under the policy, but rather a government decision because of whatever, you'll put all the insurance companies out of business, in which case you're back to square one or square zero even.
	But, you know, the one interesting thing about these lawsuits is, and we've discussed it, you know, when you've been on my channel, we've discussed it, that you may not get a legal answer, you may not get a legal resolution, but you'll get a political one and potentially a political intervention.
	And the idea that whether or not we can succeed in the claim against China is one thing.
	But the information that it brings to light just by virtue of filing these lawsuits, you bring allegations to light, you bring evidence to light.
	You then find out that certain countries now being most heavily impacted by the coronavirus, if not by the virus itself, by the reaction, were selling stuff to China in the months leading up to this or donating even.
	And now China is selling it back.
	It brings to light a number of issues, which even if there is no legal resolution or even no satisfactory legal resolution, there will be potentially a political one.
	And at the very least, there will be an educational one because people will learn what has happened in the last two months.
	And it's mind-blowing.
	Oh no doubt about it because the way I see it is lawsuits can have really sort of four purposes only one of which is to achieve a collectible judgment.
	So that's the one we all think of.
	We think of, okay, and you're a classic plaintiff's lawyer.
	The first thing they look at is, don't give me who did something bad.
	Don't give me how there's causation.
	Tell me who can I sue that has the means to pay the verdict.
	I mean, that's just the practical reality, the reality of plaintiff's practice.
	I learned that, you know, up close and personal myself.
	It's like, oh, I got a great suit.
	And he's like, who cares that they can't pay.
	So the that's your classic analysis.
	First is, is there a collectible judgment from a practicable finance, particularly in a contingency based model?
	You can't, you have to factor that in because otherwise you're working pro bono.
	And there's only so many pro bono cases one can practically do without going bankrupt yourself as a lawyer.
	But the other issues are what you point out, particularly in this environment.
	They could have deterrent effects in the future based on what happens, what gets exposed, what gets developed.
	It can have educational effects on the public, on the political class, on the professional class, on the judicial class.
	And it provides an excellent opportunity to get a sense of justice, even if it's not a perfect sense of justice.
	Hey, I tried to do something.
	I tried to correct it.
	I tried to remedy it.
	I tried to gather the intel.
	A person can feel satisfied that they did what they could do to try to make a difference.
	Maybe it didn't achieve everything, but at least it's something.
	100%.
	And not to quote, is it Tiger King or is it?
	It's Tiger King.
	Not to quote Tiger King, but one of my next videos might be on his pro se lawsuit.
	Sometimes the purpose is never to win.
	It's just to tell your story, even if it is to be dismissed and at least have the public know.
	In this case, look, I think the lawsuit still stands whatever chances I predicted it had in the first place.
	But if the allegations can be substantiated, it's phenomenally interesting.
	Um, but the bottom line is Tiger King, he's, he's suing civilly for a number of things, but it's a very interesting case.
	But the bottom line is the purpose of that lawsuit might not be to win, but rather just to have your story told.
	And that's sometimes all that people want, even if their story is destined to failure in the legal sense.
	Um, what's happened now though, it's very interesting because people will learn that Perhaps this was more than, not more than just a virus, but rather, maybe there's more to explain how this became the global pandemic that it's become, and everybody's suffering now.
	They may never get righted for the wrong, and I suspect they won't, but at the very least, maybe they can have a story that comes together to explain Where they were wronged in this entire pandemic and global response.
	For those people who haven't caught up on all their Netflix and chill, can you explain to people who Tiger King is and what his suit is?
	Because he came up today in the President's press conference.
	There was questions about whether certain people connected to Tiger King would be pardoned.
	So could you give us a basic background for us?
	I'm ashamed to admit, I'm only up to episode four now, but Tiger King is the guy who had a tiger farm in, it was either Florida, Oklahoma, but it's basically, the documentary on Netflix is about the tiger or wildcat farms, private farms in the States.
	And apparently there's more wildcats in zoos or private zoos in the States than in the wild.
	And so this is a story about one guy who had his own private cat farm, ran into a dispute with an animal rights activist, ended up in jail for, I think, 22 years for murder for hire, while in jail after being convicted criminally, filed a civil suit against the fisheries department, the wildlife department, a number of people.
	And I've read through the lawsuit, just haven't done a video on it yet.
	And it's a pro se lawsuit, meaning the individuals representing themselves with all that entails.
	And I've done a few videos on why that's not necessarily the best idea.
	But the bottom line is, he's representing himself, he's filed a lawsuit which reads like a stream of consciousness to some extent, but he wants to tell a story.
	And that class action lawsuit against China, I wouldn't say it reads like a stream of consciousness because it's drafted by lawyers and therefore, you know, it sort of satisfies certain essential criteria and structure, but it contains allegations which, even if they can't be proven, To some extent, just the mere fact of making those allegations public is going to get people discussing things.
	It's going to get people reflecting on what the issue is, what the cause might be, and where the blame might be to lie.
	But all that's the same.
	And it's the class action lawsuit against China is a long shot of all long shots.
	It might lead to political ramifications, but the allegations in it are interesting nonetheless if they can be proven allegations.
	Allegations are allegations, they're not facts until proven, but they're interesting allegations.
	Well, one of the interesting things is, I've always sort of liked, I mean, what pro se is, is when people are out there representing themselves, they don't have a lawyer.
	But often that's their only remedy under certain circumstances, either because their case is not something that is economically viable from a lawyer's perspective, or because it's a political case or a certain kind of case.
	As a general rule, it's very hard to win a pro se case.
	The court systems don't, they're supposed to take you as seriously as anyone else.
	As a practical matter, they don't.
	Also, as a pro se litigant, you don't know the rules.
	You don't know the internal procedures.
	It's very hard to master all those.
	It's hard to become a self-educated lawyer all on your own terms and very quick order.
	I'm sympathetic with a lot of people who bring pro se claims and believe the court system should give them a lot more due.
	They often raise issues that lawyers miss.
	They're often on the front lines of key civil rights problems in the country.
	But they're often ignored or they're often looked aside for various reasons.
	But I think also going back to what you said, the other utility of filing suit is you get to say your story.
	And so one of the things I used to do is travel throughout Tennessee and they have all of the old court records and these like big log books that and they sort of did a live transcript of proceedings.
	I get to go back and read someone's story from the 1870s based on the fact that they took legal action or sought legal remedy.
	So their story was preserved in posterity and history.
	Also one of my favorite pro se cases ever brought was a person who was in prison maybe had been wrongfully charged but he only he made a two-page request for emergency injunctive relief to ask that the certain people that had put him there to with he put it in different language but basically to kiss his posterior.
	It was for emergency injunctive relief of this category.
	So it became one of the famous kind of cases.
	So you never know what you're going to get with pro se cases.
	But I think we're going to see pro se cases all across the country.
	Right now we have the case... Go ahead.
	Oh no, I was going to say there's no question because one of the practical realities of hiring an attorney is being able to pay for them.
	Joe Exotic, who's in jail, convicted.
	Very few lawyers I would imagine would take the case even if he had the money to pay, and I'm not sure that he has the money to pay.
	There's limitations.
	The only problem is, like you say, they don't know the rules, they don't know the procedure, they don't know the etiquette, and they don't know how to structure and frame their ideas, which they have lots of.
	And then it just becomes a fundamental problem of pro se litigants in that they may have legitimate underlying claims, but you can't get past the structure or you can't parse through the, well, you say the lack of structure of it in order to get to the lawsuit.
	That's no problem.
	Particularly understandable in the current environment.
	The China suit is interesting because the only real way I think they can get there in terms of substantive liability is if they can establish that China was engaged in commercial activity.
	And that's why I think they were implying in that suit, though I think they needed to go further, that if this was created out of a lab or there was some lab connection to this, Then they could argue that the reason why China's lab is there is for commercial purposes as opposed to governmental purposes.
	I think that's a reach factually.
	But as long as they can allege it, then they can get to discovery.
	Because then it's just a discovery dispute as to whether that fact is true.
	And I mean, there's other hurdles in the case, as you pointed out.
	Jurisdictional issues, service and process issues, collectability issues, etc.
	But I think they could get to discovery if they got that far.
	Well, they can get to discovery if the defendant appears in the first place, or if they just say, get judgment by default and see you in China.
	One thing that a lot of people pointed out in the comment section is that China has a lot of assets in the United States, against which, in theory, they could execute a judgment by default.
	It's all extremely hypothetical for the time being, but at the very least, there's a lawsuit out there.
	It may not be making the news that you would think it would make.
	The funny thing was, I had a lot of people saying, it's funny I had to learn about this class action lawsuit against China from a Canadian lawyer in Quebec, and not from my mainstream media in the States.
	But that is the state of affairs these days, it would seem.
	It's extraordinary.
	The degree to which, I mean, the mere fact that if you're on YouTube, you could not say the word coronavirus for the last three weeks.
	I mean, they just recently changed their policies on that.
	I was watching, I had to figure out what people were saying.
	Like, people would say the surveys of virus.
	So I was like, why are they using these crazy phrases?
	I think you had your, what was your phrase for it?
	My phrase, and it might make its way on a shirt, is the my-chironocirus.
	You had people calling it the beer flu.
	They got the beer flu pretty quickly.
	Then you had the Sirona, there was the beer virus.
	There's a number of, you know, terms that people were using.
	I went with something that, I mean, it was a joke.
	I did it as a joke, the my Sirona Cyrus, just because it rhymes with coronavirus.
	And now apparently they started tolerating COVID-19.
	But it's it's what it is.
	I mean, they don't at least they don't take the videos down.
	They just demonetize them.
	So it's sort of like the soft censorship as opposed to the hard censorship.
	But yeah, my Sharona Cyrus is is my coin term.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Exactly.
	So I think there's the issue with China.
	There's the issue of the president may be able to take action to the World Trade Organization.
	There's state governments that may be able to take action because of the issue about whether they hoarded supplies.
	And particularly because of what they did as you were talking about people who donated things to them and they turned around and sold it back to them.
	Only the Chinese government could think of that.
	We did it in Canada.
	It's like this is the beautiful thing about or a beautiful cynical thing about the entire ordeal is we did the same things in Canada that people are criticizing The US president for it.
	We did the same things later.
	And so at some point, it just becomes a blame game, but a blame game that is sort of assessed retrospectively based only on the numbers.
	And so the decisions become assessed more harshly or more favorably, depending on the luck of the draw in terms of the numbers.
	In Canada, last time I checked, which was like 20 minutes ago, we were at 430 deaths over the life of the virus.
	In the States, it's not at all the same numbers.
	And so people are judging the decisions In hindsight or retrospectively, based on the results and not based on the decisions themselves.
	And one thing, just I see 30 seconds left, I've never seen this before, but in Quebec and Ontario, marijuana, we have these marijuana dispensaries that we just legalized.
	I did a video on it like a year ago.
	Still essential services, but apparently in Ontario they have deemed marijuana dispensaries not to be essential services.
	In Quebec they still are.
	I saw a line about there the other day as I drove by, but essential services are a very subjective term.
	We'll be right back after the break with Viva to talk about other suits that might be coming down the pipeline, their credibility, their viability, and what can happen.
	British are coming.
	The big thing is coming.
	You are about to be marked down on the race debate.
	Are you on the fall?
	America first.
	Yes, you are.
	What's your touch?
	Welcome back to American Countdown with Eva Fraud.
	And just looking at some of the suits that are out there, they're talking about a liberty rebellion in Idaho.
	I've gotten a lot of requests from people in Idaho who want to sue.
	A Kentucky woman wants to see her family, and she lives right across the border.
	I happen to represent some folks in a little place called Covington, Kentucky.
	It's right across the border from Ohio.
	She's not far from there.
	She's suing the governor because she wants to go back and forth in ways that are now being prohibited by the Kentucky governor.
	And that goes to issues of right to travel.
	There's a good legal piece at Georgetown Law about the right to travel in national quarantines, how the virus tests the limits of that.
	And we'll get into some of the issues there.
	Texas pastors are demanding a religious liberty exemption and are bringing suits in the city's counties that are not willing to recognize the governor's limitations.
	In Virginia, a man has now filed a lawsuit claiming the governor's stay-at-home order interferes with his right to go to church.
	Local churches in Houston filed a lawsuit to conduct religious services during this pandemic.
	The NRA of course is suing New York for deeming gun stores non-essential businesses during this pandemic.
	There's the the suit that Larry Hughes filed is in the circuit court of Russell County and I was curious whether he filed this pro se.
	No, it looks like he has counsel.
	Terrence Shay Cook has brought the suit in Richlands, Virginia.
	And the only thing I would say is I understand why they brought the suit in the state court as a petition for declaratory judgment.
	The reality is state courts, sadly, have not always been good at enforcing federal civil rights in matters like this.
	And they don't have to pay attorney's fees.
	So what I recommend people look at is Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
	42 U.S.C.
	1983.
	You can just Google that, or better yet, go to DuckDuckGo or some other ones that don't have all the algorithmic limitations that dear Google has these days.
	But the advantage of that is you get into federal court.
	You have a court that's less politically deferential to the local state politics generally, not always, and more importantly there's a fee shifting provision.
	The state has to write you a check if they lose, or your lawyer a check if they lose, and that provides a practical deterrence from them simply just litigating the matter because they can if they know there's financial risk at the end of the equation.
	It's the same here.
	That's why the NRA filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
	It filed under the civil rights laws, challenging what happened.
	And all of this, what's interesting to me, Viva, is that whether we're talking about in the insurance context, the China context, or these civil rights suits or state declaratory judgment cases, a lot of them are going to come down to really a core factual question, which is to what degree Did the pandemic justify what took place?
	To what degree did the virus justify what took place?
	Because like under the federal constitutional analysis is, OK, was there a compelling public interest behind what the governments were doing?
	They'll say, hey, we had to to make sure hospitals weren't overcapacity and to make and to preserve lives, to prevent the spread of the disease.
	And the big question will be, well, was the means they chose prohibiting free speech, prohibiting petitions to be circulated to get on the ballot, prohibiting churches from gathering, prohibiting the public association, prohibiting right to travel between states, prohibiting even people walking in the park in some places, or paddle boarding in Malibu, or doing T-ball with your little girl in the backyard, or weightlifting in the front yard in Washington, D.C.? ?
	All of which have extraordinarily been cited in ways.
	I mean, one person was cited in Pennsylvania for driving in their car.
	There's a little doll store that has brought suit in Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania governor in 1983 grounds because they're asserting that their property has been taken without just compensation.
	That the whole point of it, going back to, I think, a second question, a follow-up question on this is, how are we going to apportion loss?
	And do we all end up paying for it in the end, ultimately, if insurance companies can't pay, if governments have to go to taxpayer coffers?
	But putting that second question to a little later, it seems to me that whether or in the insurance context where we're talking about did, was the lockdown necessary for the pandemic?
	Because if it was necessary for the pandemic, then the insurance company can say the pandemic is the cause of why you shut down.
	If it wasn't necessary for the lockdown, then there's a good argument that no, in fact, the government lockdown is why they shut down.
	Even though they have sort of temporal cause, they would have, in legal terms, proximate cause.
	What do you think about that?
	I think it's going to be the if that is going to be unanswerable on a legal basis in the sense of incrimination, not in the sense of exculpatory ifs.
	It's going to be if.
	We'll never know.
	And this is one thing I've been saying for a while.
	We can all anticipate the numbers are not going to be what they were.
	The outcome is not going to be what was predicted.
	And then the question is going to be, would that have been the case, notwithstanding the measures taken?
	Or is it the case because of the measures taken?
	And we'll never know because you can't live two alternate realities at the same time.
	But the bottom line is, I don't have any optimism for any of these lawsuits.
	There's a reason why the insurance provisions exclude pandemics, riots, you know, those types of catastrophic issues, and you're gonna hold the government liable, okay, so even in your best case scenario, the government's gonna be held liable for decisions that they're gonna have to tap into tax dollars to pay out, like you said, it's sort of like the police department's paying out liability lawsuits, it's great, it's a victory for the victim, it's sort of like the police department's paying out liability lawsuits, it's great, it's a victory for the victim, but at the
	But the bottom line is this, I don't think, even in hindsight, I think people might look back on this and say it was like the biggest global overreaction Those who are going to say that are going to say that.
	Others are going to say it was the way it turned out because of the reaction and therefore you can't possibly fault the government for protecting its citizens by imposing these measures which appear draconian, appear unconstitutional, but we'll never have a basis of comparison.
	We're just going to have a government Reacting in the exact same way every country on earth, pretty much, is reacting.
	And you're never going to have the courts have any sort of incentive to start siding with the citizens, setting the precedent that that was set nationally, internationally, and globally.
	And so I say it's too bad, so sad.
	And I say this as someone who's going to probably suffer to some extent as well.
	It's going to be too sad, so sad.
	There's going to be some lawyers making money off of it.
	You might get some lower court decisions going out renegade and saying, yeah, we're going to hold them liable because it wasn't necessary.
	It'll get to the Supreme Court at some point in Canada and the U.S., and they're going to say, yeah, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and we can't hold the government liable for the consequences of those measures, which ostensibly were only there to protect the citizens from further harm.
	I think ultimately that's the big hurdle.
	What I've been telling people is that on paper, legally, this has never happened before in the United States, and that in my view it's not been justified and warranted by the information they had, that this degree, and arguably maybe it can never be justified, there's at least a position of that.
	What's been fascinating to me has been, but I agree with you, that the obstacle is political.
	The obstacle is courts do not want to side with citizens against their fellow political patrons and promoters and basically bed brothers and bed sisters in terms of the political class.
	They don't want to stand against them.
	And in the history, the sad history in the American judicial system is that at times of crisis, Our court system has been terrible at enforcing constitutional rights and liberties.
	It has made a lot of dubious decisions in the quarantine context.
	Almost every bad decision the U.S.
	Supreme Court or an American court has made has been during a crisis time period.
	So during World War I, World War II, the only time the great petition and right of habeas corpus protected under the U.S.
	Constitution somehow managed to get suspended was the Civil War.
	Then it was a president who was otherwise a very admirable president, Abraham Lincoln, who did something that was very not admirable in the context of what he did.
	But he got away with it because the courts weren't going to do anything about it during a war time.
	During World War I, we had the Palmer raids.
	We had a wide range.
	World War I overlapped with the Spanish flu and we did have abuses.
	We had police officers who shot people in the streets because they weren't wearing masks in some cities that had mandatory mask ordinances, which are now coming back into vogue.
	So, but we didn't have anything close to this scale or this scope.
	My approach is twofold.
	One, just because you're running into a political heavy obstacle, that's even more reason to bring suit for me.
	The harder the odds, the more difficult the odds, the bigger the challenge, the better the opportunity.
	and to make a difference and never let it deter you, even if it seems utterly impossible.
	For Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall and other people, there was really no good sound reason to think suddenly after 80 years of the Supreme Court and the federal high courts leading the way and gutting the meaning of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and the civil rights laws from Section 1981 to Section 1983, to suddenly believe and 15th Amendments and the civil rights laws from Section 1981 to Section 1983, to suddenly And yet within 10 years, they achieved that.
	- Let's go. - Go ahead. - Robert, It's the interesting point is that the reason anyone would take these lawsuits is not for the victory, but rather for the historical way in which it's going to be looked upon.
	If nobody does anything 20 years from now, there'll be nothing to read about.
	If people take these lawsuits, I mean, this is my hope from all of this is that in 10, 20, 30 years time, people will look back on this and say, perhaps it was an overreaction, perhaps Before enacting these sweeping and utterly crippling policy decisions, there will be some discussion about it, notwithstanding any perceived sense of urgency, and we'll try to mitigate as opposed to coming with sweeping draconian measures, which might be justifiable in the eyes of people, you know, enforcing them.
	And so maybe, maybe that would be the idea is to go down in history as being the ones to question the reaction.
	I don't think they stand a chance of success.
	But yeah, maybe 10, 20 years down the line, people are gonna say, this was the decision.
	This was the lawsuit that someone filed.
	And let's look on this now when we're facing another pandemic in 20 or 30 years, or when we're facing another crisis in 10 or 20 years.
	But the bottom line is I'm hoping that people might look back on this and say that it might have been a reaction that was anticipated, but it might have been a little excessive in that there were less invasive ways of achieving something of the similar results that didn't involve what we're but it might have been a little excessive in that there were less invasive ways of achieving something Exactly.
	To sort of require much better public policy to be in place in the first place and much greater consideration of people's constitutional liberties than has been done here.
	And my other approach in all of this is to try to guilt the court systems that are going to be reviewing the cases, whether I'm involved with them or simply supporting them in some manner, because to me, my presentation is going to be the same.
	I can preview for people now what the oral argument is going to be like.
	It's going to be, we've been here before, and the courts have failed in the United States.
	And do you want to be the judge who issued Korematsu Part 2?
	Or Korematsu being the famous case where our federal courts, including our U.S.
	Supreme Court, greenlit the detention of citizens across this country simply because their ancestry happened to be Japanese?
	It is a decision that still lives in infamy, but it took half a century for the Supreme Court to apologize for it.
	So I think... Go ahead.
	Oh, I was going to say an interesting thing.
	You said to guilt them into it.
	And it's not to say that they don't have a conscience.
	It's to say when you talk about guilting someone into something, it has to imply that they have a conscience in real time.
	I don't think of the Korematsu decision, I don't think anybody thought it was wrong at the time.
	And so it's only hindsight, like 30 years later, that the current mental framework, social framework can look back.
	And even then it's not guilt, it's rather just we know more than we knew then.
	And we might have that sort of transition with this in 20 years.
	Like, okay, if there's a pandemic with the projections that we've seen here, maybe we should have some policy discussion before having some policy decisions.
	And maybe instead of shutting everything down, you can focus on protecting the most vulnerable.
	Maybe you have those discussions as opposed to these reflexive sort of knee-jerk reactions.
	When you say that, I don't think anyone's going to feel guilty about what was done now in real time.
	I think in retrospect or in hindsight in the future, they might say, yeah, it was an overreaction because they're not going to be enveloped in the absolute panic that everybody is sort of overwhelmed by now.
	As they were in the Korematsu decision, we're like, yeah.
	At the time, there was no alternative.
	That was the only way of protecting the mainland from a foreign threat.
	And right now, it's the exact same rationale.
	My only concern is, like Mark Twain said, you know, history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
	And this certainly rhymes, where, like, you have this absolute, overwhelming, invasive fear of an invisible threat, and this is the only way that people think they can protect about it.
	Not just shutting down nations.
	Because, Robert, I don't know if you know this, like, we're in Canada.
	We don't have the same state system that you have in the States, but we have, like, we have provinces.
	But right now, you can't travel in between provinces.
	And even within provinces, They are restricting travels within boroughs, and they are issuing tickets.
	Quebec has been pretty good in terms of people respecting social distancing, but they're actually issuing tickets for not respecting social distancing guidelines.
	Is the reaction to this perceived threat real or exaggerated?
	Because I don't think anybody thinks the threat is not real.
	It's just a question of whether or not We're making it into more than it is.
	But right now, people are saying, yeah, this is what we have to do.
	In 20 years time, maybe they're going to look back on it the same way we are now looking back on, you know, World War II decisions.
	Exactly.
	I've been telling people, if you ever wanted to know...
	Why did these decisions that we look at now and say these were crazy decisions, these were embarrassing decisions, these were humiliating decisions, whether we're talking about Korematsu, some of the decisions that happened during the Palma raids in World War I, some of the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, some of these horrendous actions, or in other governments.
	How did governments just seize power overnight and get people to just give up and forfeit their core liberties without even a whisper of protest?
	We're getting to see it in live time.
	Go ahead.
	Not just to give up their civil liberties, but to turn into the enforcers of their neighbors.
	I mean, I'm on Twitter and I'm not maybe the most active on Twitter, but I see people on Twitter in Canada saying, I see my neighbors walking around.
	Who do I call?
	They're breaking quarantine.
	And I question how they even know that their neighbors are under quarantine because quarantine is a specific law that relates to specific travelers or people who are, you know, coming back from foreign countries, how they even know, but it turns everybody into the surveillance state that they no longer even have to employ.
	And it's, it is, it's, it's, it's, this is a life changing, eye opening experience.
	And not just for a 40 year old, like for my kids, I'm telling you can see how quickly it can go from normal civil liberties that you take for granted to willingly sacrificing them or willingly forfeiting them on the basis of a real perceived or exaggerated threat.
	And if you want to know how crazy things happened in the past, we're getting a taste of it right now.
	And just hopefully the taste is not too long because tastes can get nauseating after too long.
	Exactly.
	Hopefully it doesn't poison our sense of old school liberty.
	As I tell people, Cuba has a longer life expectancy than people in the United States.
	Because it turns out if you basically lock up your citizenry on a daily basis and you have people spy on each other on a routine basis, it's hard to commit crime because your neighbor's spying on you.
	It's hard to commit crime because you can't come home with a TV without everybody wondering how you got it when nobody else gets it.
	Money.
	It's hard to have alcoholism or drug abuse because you're only given $4 a month to spend.
	So it turns out you can't buy the alcohol, you can't buy the drugs.
	So there's ways in which we can really limit mortality, but it comes at the expense of liberty.
	And that that's often been, as Ben Franklin, the famous American, put it, anybody who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither in the end.
	And it's just so foreign to us.
	The core of American liberty and its concept to see this imposed so quickly, so easily, so summarily by so many politicians who are terrified.
	And you're right, it's the fear.
	And the fear, it's like it turns out, fear of terrorism couldn't get a lot of us to forfeit a lot of liberties.
	Some, but not nearly the scope and scale of what's happening here, either in terms of time or in terms of degree.
	The fear of a foreign enemy could get us to do a lot of crazy stuff, but nothing like this.
	Fear of crime could get us to do a lot of crazy stuff, but nothing like this.
	It turns out all along we just needed an invisible enemy.
	A virus.
	Where you're looking at your neighbor and maybe they're bringing it over to you when they're bringing you the pie for the afternoon barbecue.
	The idea of being infected by something that you can't see, it is, I mean, look, they've made movies about it, they make movies every four years about it, it's not an old idea.
	But yeah, this is the interesting, my biggest concern is that we actually don't learn the right lessons, but we learn the wrongest of the lessons about this.
	Where people are gonna say, you know, the one thing I'd like to know is the deaths per month, year over year, across all cities implementing these policies.
	But my concern is that people are gonna say, look, We had fewer deaths, we had fewer murders, we had fewer car accidents, and so this should just be the new normal because the only way to protect yourselves from yourselves is by implementing these draconian measures.
	And in which case, we're going to learn the absolute wrongest lesson of all of this.
	The lesson is, how do you preserve as much of your fundamental rights and liberties while reasonably defending against perceived threats or real threats?
	And the risk is that when people look at the net positive or net negative, they're just going to draw the most simplistic conclusions from all of this as to the accuracy, the efficiency of the measures that were implemented.
	But the idea that like, we take for granted that walking outside or I think the most fascinating thing about all of this is that it's actually conditioned us within a period of a month to want to physically avoid other humans For the fear of this invisible threat.
	And I think a lot of people are learning lessons.
	And I think, unfortunately, I think a lot of people are learning the wrong lessons from this.
	But we'll see where we're at in a year from now.
	Exactly.
	I think that's a very good summation of what it is and what we're facing, what we're dealing with.
	And people can seek legal relief and legal remedy, knowing going in they're facing an uphill battle.
	Maybe they're only preserving it for posterity's purposes, but at least they will have recorded and registered their protest.
	In a court of public opinion and a court of law that's preserved historically for the future generations to see and to second guess as we look back and say Korematsu should have never happened and if I had been on the Supreme Court I would have made sure it didn't happen like every young law student believes.
	Well now we see that same challenge and every judge is going to get the same opportunity and to the degree they make mistakes our future lawyers can learn from those mistakes.
	The problem is they're going to learn, but the reality of the lawsuits are that I don't think you're ever going to get a higher court who's going to set the precedent that the government should be limited in their ability to prevent what is Globally regarded as a real immediate threat of a pandemic.
	Um, you know, we sort of live in a world now where nobody wants to be responsible for one death.
	And it's an amazing thing, incidentally, because, you know, in Canada, we've had 430 deaths, we've had a lot of positive diagnosis, I think, like 14 or 17,000, 17,000, give or take.
	But it starts from The threshold or the criteria is avoid the pandemic, flatten the curve, that's what we want.
	And then our prime minister, our premier, Legault, who I happen to like and I happen to think he's doing a very good job, but at one point he says, you know, like, one death is too many.
	And now we go from this original criteria, which is flattening the curve, avoiding a pandemic, to one death is too many to justify these forfeiture of civil liberties.
	And that's like sort of the fluidity or the fluidity of a situation where you can forget your original objective and the moving goalposts of what the objective actually is.
	But the bottom line is I don't see any court ever deciding that they're going to tie the government's hands as to what the government thinks it has to do in order to protect its citizens.
	I just don't see it ever happening.
	And the only question is going to be in the future when you're faced with something like this, are you going to have a leader who's going to be strong enough to some extent To stand up or to defy, if it's the appropriate thing to do, the global tendency and the global response.
	And it may just be an impossible thing for anybody to do, even if they think it's right.
	You have Sweden doing something similar, but you know damn well that people are just waiting to jump on Sweden if the proverbial poo-poo hits the fan there.
	And the first thing they're going to do is blame it on the lack of response from the government.
	And then you have Japan, who's sort of late to the game in terms of the lockdown.
	Now, you know, implementing it, but are they implementing it because it's necessary?
	Are they implementing it just because they have to sort of comply with the global trends so as to not be regarded as reckless or negligent governments?
	But I don't see the court succeeding.
	I don't see these lawsuits sitting in court.
	It's going to be disastrous for a number of people.
	The only hope is that this resolves itself sooner than later so that the damage is sort of minimized.
	And I think the other utility to suits, aside from, you know, whatever remote opportunity they may have in success in the current political environment, preserving it for future purposes, But I think the other utility is it starts to educate political leaders now.
	If they start facing a range of suits, the more suits, the merrier in that context, the more they're hearing, OK, I'm getting pushback.
	I'm getting pushback from people with resources or the wherewithal to take political activism.
	Either they're filing pro se suits that mirror other suits.
	I mean, I'm going to be when we file suit.
	I'm going to make those suits widely available so people can cut and paste.
	There's going to be no copyright claim on them.
	Do what you want with them.
	File them in your local county, file them in your local federal court, go at it.
	You can bring federal civil rights suits anywhere.
	You don't have to just bring them in federal court and bring them in state court to encourage as many people to take political action as possible.
	Because I think if they see that, if they see, I think one of the worrisome things has been.
	They're saying, hey, the only pushback we're getting is on inmates.
	The only pushback we're getting is on ICE detainees.
	The only pushback we're getting is on abortion facilities.
	And so when politicians see that, they think, yeah, we can just pretty much do what we want here.
	And now the NRA started pushing back.
	And what happened?
	A whole bunch of governors and mayors stepped back from saying that they were going to call gun stores not essential.
	Same thing with churches in Texas and Florida.
	As soon as arrests started happening, all of a sudden, governors stepped in and said, well, actually, it's okay to hold church, just do it in this way and comply with social distancing and so on and so forth.
	So I think that's the utility of suits, is even if you can't get the courts to do anything because of the political environment that we're in, you at least educate the politicians that, hey, hold on, maybe you haven't balanced the public policies right here.
	And every governor down deep, even if they want to be a petty king or petty tyrant at times, they also want to imagine themselves in the founding father tradition of the United States and that they're great patriots.
	I mean, their only oath is to the Constitution.
	It's nothing else.
	It's not to their own power.
	It's not to the future power of the state.
	I think any suits, no matter how difficult they'll be in the judicial arena, are worthwhile to educate our public officials.
	Maybe they need to reexamine their assumptions.
	No, 100% and incidentally that's the other utility of the suits is we sort of live in an era now with more democratized information and you get people like me and you get people like the Cernoviches and the Scott Adams and you, Robert, on Twitter and all the social media with big followings bringing these suits to the attention of people who might otherwise never know they existed because other entities are never going to cover them.
	And it does, it brings awareness to the people and it creates a political pressure that In a month's time, people might start saying, "Okay, well, whereas I once supported this idea a month ago, "now the cure seems worse than the illness type thing." And it'll have that effect.
	And so you can't undermine it.
	It's not because you lose a lawsuit that you've lost the lawsuit.
	You might lose the lawsuit or lose the war and win the battle type thing.
	But they do have an awareness issue to them, which is, which is invaluable.
	And the more people talk about it, sort of, you know, like the Streisand effect is the more people are going to learn about it.
	And if they do nothing else, they educate the people so that people put political pressure on their, on their leaders say, okay, we supported you for a few weeks, we supported you for a month.
	And now we are ready to live with the risks.
	So, you know, like Scott Adams was saying, let the people who are willing to live with the risk get back to work and start supporting the infrastructure that's going to be needed to support these political decisions.
	Exactly.
	Thanks, Viva.
	I recommend everybody go to his YouTube page.
	You can subscribe.
	You can join.
	You can be part of Super Chats if you join.
	You can be part of it.
	He has regular blogs or vlogs, as they're called, because of their video and their law involved.
	And you can find out information about a wide range of cases.
	There are short videos.
	There are longer videos.
	All very educational.
	Because in the end, the legal system is critical for public information.
	And the more you become self-educated, self-informed about your rights and your responsibilities, then you can assert your powers as an ordinary, everyday individual in ways that can seize power back from the politicians, even in context of crises like these.
	So thanks for being with us, Viva, and I recommend everybody go to the YouTube site.
	Sign up, join, subscribe.
	It's fantastic.
	Thanks a lot.
	Robert, thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	It was wonderful talking to you.
	Absolutely.
	For everybody, we're going to be taking your calls as the jury in the bottom half of the hour.
	So you can call at 877.
	7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
	That's 8-7-7-7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
	Or if you're calling internationally, you can put in your area code and put in 1-5-1-2-6-4-6-1776.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	Or if you're calling internationally, you can put in your area code and put in 1-512-646-1776.
	That's 1-512-646-1776.
	So call in with any of your questions.
	Try to have them to about a minute if you can.
	And so that we can be able to answer them fully and in detail as best as possible as you, the jury, get to be participant in this process, in this public education and public information process.
	And as we look at it, take a look at chart number 21, and consider how exceptional and unusual this is in our current political environment.
	Here you have the governor of South Carolina, I'm sorry, South Dakota, one of the only governors in the country to refuse to enforce a mandatory shutdown.
	As she said, and she told the Associated Press, and she stuck with her position despite this massive pressure from the national media.
	Massive pressure from the medical establishment wanting to impose medical martial law on the United States of America and 90% of the globe.
	Despite facing all this pressure from other Republican governors, even in big states, folding and capitulating on a regular basis.
	And what did she tell the Associated Press?
	What has she stuck with?
	She says, quote, about her citizens that elected her governor because she takes serious her oath to the Constitution of both the United States and South Dakota.
	She said, quote, they are free to exercise their rights to work.
	To worship, and to play, or to stay at home, or to conduct social distancing.
	That's your right as an American.
	It has been the rights we help preserve and protect and build for two centuries, and we have people wanting us to give it away in two weeks.
	It may be tough to take on the challenge in the courts, but what good obstacle hasn't been meant to overcome?
	So come back to us after the break and we'll listen to your calls as part of the jury and answer your questions as to how best you can assert and protect your rights and do everything you can to reverse the course of this unconstitutional crisis.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown where we're going to be taking your calls in the bottom half of the hour and try to have them basically for about a minute if you can and we'll try to give you the best and most informed answers possible.
	Let's look at a couple of charts as we're talking about some of the issues pending.
	And in particular about ways you can improve your own health and protect your own health during this effective national quarantine.
	And it's important to understand quarantine legally, whether we're talking about the federal law or most state laws that are modeled on it, simply means keeping someone who is sick or is likely sick or you have probable cause to believe has a communicable disease from being in a position to spread that communicable disease.
	Quarantine has never meant suppressing and prohibiting civil liberties.
	It has never meant shutting down an entire economy.
	It has never meant mass house arrest.
	It's never meant any of those things.
	So that is not what a quarantine has historically provided for, nor legally permitted, nor constitutionally prescribed.
	So understand that when they try to say, oh, this is just a quarantine, what we're doing.
	No, it's not.
	They're doing mass house arrest.
	They're imprisoning people in their own homes and then limiting what even they can do in their own homes.
	In some cases, some governors and mayors are suggesting that the social distancing applies to limit how many people you can have in your own family effectively.
	You had the World Health Organization individual yesterday talk about going in and removing people's kids or removing grandma or grandpa for their protection from the rest of the family.
	That has never been what a quarantine law constitutionally or statutorily or historically or medically in terms of the law has ever provided for or allowed.
	So that's a useful context to remember.
	In addition, in that context, in terms of preserving and protecting your own health, there's been these attempts to limit people's outdoor activity.
	Well, let's go to chart number two.
	And in there it's just one of the statements about the study about how the outdoors, exercise, sunshine, fresh air are all good for people's immune systems and health and not so great for viruses.
	There is in fact a compelling link between exercise and a strong immune system.
	A lack of vitamin D, which our bodies synthesize when our skin is exposed to the sun, has long been associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.
	It's the lack of the vitamins that leads you to be susceptible to disease.
	The lack of the outdoors activity, lack of sunshine activity, lack of other ways of protecting your own health.
	For example, they found that various, whether it's air purifiers or other ways of introducing humidity into an environment can help reduce the spread of a wide range of dangerous bacterias.
	If we look at chart number eight, this is where they did a study and they looked at the degree to which the percentage of humidity impact and affected bacteria, viruses, funguses, molds, mites, respiratory infections, allergens, asthma, you name it.
	And there's often a correlation between the air quality and the air humidity in one's personal public health.
	So we do encourage you to continue to go to our sponsor site InfoWarsStore.com where you can get things to benefit you during this time period.
	Particularly advisable in the time period when they're talking about not allowing people to buy these products or buy other products that they want because they're going to list them as non-essential.
	You can get things like the Alexa Pure Breeze Air Purifier.
	It's currently on sale for people who watch this show.
	If you go in now you can get it for the No, for the near short term, while it's still available.
	You can boost your natural systems with various vitamins, including, as was talked about there, supplementing your vitamin D for those people who are not allowed to go outside of their home and enjoy the benefit of the sun.
	You can get other forms of natural supplements, other products, whatever you like, whatever you enjoy.
	You can get the coffee, which is fantastic.
	I'm a coffee snob and happen to enjoy it.
	There's a wide range of products you can get that are particularly beneficial to you right now in this time period when you're stuck and effectively locked into your own home by your local mayor, your local governor, your local politician.
	Let us go to some of the videos of what's really happening for those people who are daring to assert their constitutional rights and their protected liberties.
	Let's look at a sequence of videos that detail people being arrested for just basic activities.
	Let's look at first with video clip number one about what happened to a church in Hammond for simply trying to organize their own members at the church.
	27 people have died.
	Police in Hammond, Indiana stop a church service to find statewide stay-at-home orders.
	Neighbors called to report dozens of people heading into the Church of Christ at 169th and Leland.
	Officers went inside and found 30 to 40 people gathered for Palm Sunday.
	Some wore masks, but most did not.
	Hammond's mayor says the pastor ignored officers who told everyone to leave.
	I think that just the fact that they had the first service, they violated the law criminally.
	And I'm going to speak to the prosecutor about that tomorrow.
	If they were going forward with the 5 o'clock, it would have been more serious.
	Our community is not going to back down from churchgoing.
	Our community is not going to back down from the coronavirus.
	Church leaders argued their service was essential and not subject to the governor's order.
	Officers issued citation.
	Citations.
	That means to show up in court and be fined or be criminally prosecuted.
	As you heard the local politician saying, it was going to be particularly dangerous if the 5 p.m.
	service happened.
	Let's look at another video, another documentation of an arrest for doing what?
	For simply doing political protest activities.
	Let's look at video clip number three.
	I understand the purpose of the stay-at-home order, although I think it's a little bit overreach.
	This is cell phone footage of police issuing the citation to Ron Konopaski Thursday morning in front of the Valencia Street Planned Parenthood.
	The anti-abortion advocate had a small booth outside of the clinic since February.
	The star of The Sea Parishioner argues he conducted essential business by providing options to pregnant women.
	Once they get inside, they're only offered one option, and that's an abortion.
	And so we're outside to try to give them another choice that they can keep their baby.
	Police had talked to him on Tuesday, giving him a warning on Wednesday.
	And on Thursday, a ticket.
	Police Chief Bill Scott says they're cracking down on businesses and individuals who repeatedly violate the health order.
	We're not warning you twice.
	So please heed to these orders.
	We're trying to save lives.
	The chief says officers have already broken up soccer games at parks and issued warnings to businesses that stayed open.
	I found this gift store on Saturday.
	The owner says he's got an essential business, selling Chinese newspapers so the seniors can stay informed.
	As for Ron, he won't be going back to the Planned Parenthood anytime soon.
	Officers warned they would arrest him if he does.
	I'm 86 years old.
	I gotta go sometime.
	And if it's the coronavirus, well, so what's the difference?
	It's been a relatively quiet Monday on Latrobe Drive.
	A handful of demonstrators and no police in sight.
	But Saturday, CMPD arrested eight people, seven pictured here in jail photos.
	All of them are charged with violating the mass gathering section of the state's stay-at-home order.
	It's in the best interest, the safety and well-being of the public that more strict compliance be instituted.
	And that is, once again, to City Councilman Matt Newton says this shows officers will do what's necessary, but he also wants people to understand staying healthy means protecting yourself and the health care system that is seeing more and more cases of coronavirus.
	You do that by staying home, by staying apart, and that's what this order is all about.
	David Benham, one of the eight arrested, and his brother for years have led pro-life demonstrations at the Preferred Women's Clinic on Latrobe.
	Benham didn't respond to my request for comment today.
	Police say he was in a group of about 50 people Saturday and that they were warned and given citations before the arrests were made.
	By phone, I spoke to Councilmember Braxton Winston, He led demonstrations in Charlotte in 2016, something he refers to as direct action by citizens.
	Now, he says, direct action during the pandemic is staying home.
	These orders are for everybody, of every creed and every neighborhood.
	This is our most direct tool, staying at home, to saving lives right now.
	Imagine using that as the pretext to suppress political rallies, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they're using it to suppress people who are protesting abortion or trying to offer an alternative to abortion.
	But that's not all that's happening.
	You think Checkpoint Charlie won't happen here in the United States?
	Well, check again.
	Let's look at video clip number four.
	Police checkpoints are now in place in one Texas city.
	It's how they're enforcing that stay home order.
	It's happening in Ed Couch.
	Police there say the checkpoints were set up after city officials noticed people were ignoring recommendations.
	The checkpoints are at random locations during the day.
	We saw a decrease in traffic.
	We saw more people staying at home and so it helps us as an alert system.
	It helps us as an enforcing system and an educating system.
	City officials say they've used checkpoints to educate residents on the policies.
	They say they have noticed fewer cars on the road since they started the operation on Monday.
	Anyone who violates orders will be cited beginning next week.
	So not only do we have Checkpoint Charlie, but we have a former Obama FDA official who has been widely cited by the media as an expert in this area, calling for mass surveillance on an ongoing basis of ordinary citizens as a means to fight this pandemic or future pandemics.
	Let's look at video number six.
	When you look at where things are in terms of how investors are looking at the market, Do you think they're looking at it correctly?
	Do you think that they're including the kind of information you're talking about and expectations about what that new normal looks like and that kind of timeline?
	Look, it really depends.
	I think if we have in place by August a very broad surveillance system for detecting outbreaks and isolating individual cases, which we should have, but someone needs to own that portfolio and drive it forward with the government at both the state and the federal level.
	Mass surveillance.
	And what's that going to produce?
	Well, here's what some governments around the world are training for to execute these stay-at-home orders, going door-to-door, using car-to-car, neighbor-to-neighbor, using SWAT team-like tactics.
	Let's look at video clip number 15.
	He's dangerously removed his mask.
	But now he must be taken in deeper.
	Maybe he's in the car with a mask.
	How do you drag him out of that?
	These SWAT team-like tactics?
	Checkpoint Charlies?
	Mass surveillance?
	We end up with scenes like this one from Thailand, where the monkeys, who are used to being fed by the tourists and others, are raiding the city's squares.
	Let's look at this sort of dystopian nightmare vision out of something like a movie like The Next 28 Days.
	Video clip number 17.
	Video clip number 17.
	That these kind of scenes be repeated around the world and for how long?
	Well, let's take a look at video clip number 20 and listen to the length of time he's really calling for the shutdown to occur.
	Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more.
	We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
	I know that's dreadful news to hear.
	How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half?
	Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19?
	The truth is, we have no choice.
	If we prematurely end that physical distancing and the other measures, keeping it at bay, deaths could skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands, if not a million.
	We cannot return to normal until there's a vaccine.
	Conferences, concerts, sporting events, religious services, dinner in a restaurant, none of that will resume until we find a vaccine, a treatment, or a cure.
	12 to 18 months.
	The pandemic has an excuse for forced vaccines.
	Maybe of the kind that Bill Gates likes, since Bill Gates is backing this and pushing this when he's talked about, as he did recently on a Reddit conversation, doing digital chips in you.
	So until you accept a needle in your arm or a chip in your finger, we're not going to allow you to work or go to church or go to school or pray or even simply walk in the park or play t-ball in your backyard.
	That's the kind of mindset mentality our politicians are pushing in this medical martial law context that they want to impose a quarantine on the Constitution, a quarantine on the economy, but not a quarantine really for our or necessary for our public health.
	Let's look at the kind of public health remedies we could be choosing.
	Let's look at how simple methods of using various methods to introduce humidity in a home and humidification techniques and tactics have been shown to be successful according to various media reports around the country, around the world.
	Things were choices that we're not using and we're not utilizing.
	Instead, we're finding ways to suspend the transparency laws, suspend the anti-bribery laws, suspend the gift-giving laws, suspend the laws that govern criminal background checks for child care workers, suspend the laws, let prisoners go free, let detainees go free, let other people go free let prisoners go free, let detainees go free, let other people go free while we arrest the pastor, while we arrest the protester, while we arrest the ordinary citizen, the father in his backyard playing tee ball with his daughter or the grandfather who attends an engagement party
	The...
	Instead, these are the kind of techniques we could be utilizing that are actually more narrowly and necessarily tailored to the issues at hand.
	Let's look at video clip number 19.
	Don't be in dry air.
	Don't be in dry buildings.
	After years of research, oncologist and Harvard Medical School lecturer Dr. Stephanie Taylor found air humidity can help with far more than just a cough.
	I think this is one of the most effective precautions we can take.
	Dr. Taylor wanted to find out why infections spread so quickly in hospitals.
	So she and her team studied close to 400 hospital patients and looked at everything from their number of visitors To hand hygiene.
	And then that's when we first found this relationship between dry indoor air and more infections.
	And we didn't believe it.
	We just thought, that's crazy.
	Their research found when humidity is low, infection rates go up.
	Does this all explain why people tend to get more sick in the winter than in the summer?
	I believe, yes.
	So there's all these alternatives we could be considering as ways to improve health.
	We could have targeted and tailored and done sort of surgical bombing of those particular locations.
	Surgical protection of the most vulnerable, of the elderly, of those who have various forms of immunodeficiencies.
	Those are the people we could have made sure were protected.
	And instead, we've done this mass wholesale mass house arrest that doesn't appear to either be proportionate or ultimately constitutionally consistent to the quarantine laws of the past.
	So let's go to your calls from you, the jury, and hear what you have to say and try to give you the best answers we can.
	Let's start with Mickey in Arkansas.
	Hi, Mr. Bullard.
	Yes, sir.
	How are you?
	I'm doing good.
	I'm so glad that you have a segment now.
	I've really learned a lot by listening to you.
	I've been a long-time listener of InfoWars and Owen Shorter, Alex Jones, David Knight.
	My question tonight is, I've heard Alex and Owen and David all talk about, in 2015, Obama sold this virus to the Chinese.
	I don't want to say that's true or false.
	I'm just saying, if it is true, why are we so worried about filing lawsuits against China and not Obama?
	So the context of how this disease arose and originated is still an open question.
	And I think it's something that the litigation can help solve.
	So there's been a range of theories and hypotheses that have been tested out there by a range of people.
	There's been various forms of sort of informed speculation, but there isn't certain knowledge.
	We don't really know.
	There's some beliefs that it could be connected to a biological lab in China.
	There are people that were concerned that it was connected to the various Chinese infiltration of labs in both Canada and the United States.
	There was concern about whether there was any overlap there.
	There have been criminal prosecutions, as you may be aware, from various officials in the United States, including people at Harvard, connected to corruption issues involving China.
	So there was a concern that there could be some potential overlap, some potential risk.
	And maybe it's very indirect, maybe it's not that causally connected, maybe it is.
	We don't fully know the scope and the scale of it.
	Right now the best information is, and the primary assumption is, that this arose from a food market in Wuhan.
	But there's increasing doubts.
	I've talked to people that are in the medical community that have talked to others who have looked at the virus, who believe that there's aspects of this virus that you could reasonably conclude, or that there's probable cause or evidence.
	Of it being at least partially man-made and so that there may have been experimentation on a bat and that later led to the disease being particularly dangerous.
	But we don't have any real verifiable information at this point because the Chinese government has not been forthcoming.
	The Chinese government has not been honest.
	We had even in January 14th the Chinese government leading the World Health Organization to put a tweet out to the entire world saying that the COVID-19 was not even a communicable or transmittal disease between humans.
	So they only corrected that about a week or so later.
	So what we have, and we have reason to believe that the Chinese government knows more information than they've provided.
	We have reason to believe that this may be connected to the biological labs in Wuhan.
	We just don't know at this point.
	And that's what lawsuits can provide.
	Lawsuits can start with a particular theory based on what information they have.
	Sometimes you'll see a lawsuit will say, upon information and belief.
	Sometimes you don't really know.
	You can even plead in the alternative.
	So sometimes you'll see, well, if this set of facts is true, then this legal remedy is available.
	Whereas if this set of facts are true, that legal remedy is available.
	Where you don't know all of the facts because the facts are in the possession of the other party or a different party than the person suing.
	So I think that can be potentially the useful aspect is if you can get past the initial motion to dismiss stage.
	And there's a wide range of special immunities that apply to foreign governments that make it very difficult in the United States to even sue those foreign governments.
	To claim for a court to even assert jurisdiction over those foreign governments.
	To even compel them to answer the complaint in the first case.
	in the first place.
	So that's some of the hurdles and obstacles that are severe and substantial that we face.
	But the benefits is if you can get past those hurdles is maybe we can get to the evidentiary truth that right now we're all making just informed guesses about.
	So thank you very much for calling.
	Let's go to Kevin from Montana.
	Mr. Barnes.
	Hey, how are you?
	Great show.
	Thank you, sir.
	Great show.
	And I was just wondering what your thought would be Could this be Trump's way, the way he's putting Fauci and Bricks out there on the front line, could this be his way, his 3D chess way of exposing these people to the American public, to Deep State?
	I think there's hope that that's the case, but I think there's, here's the two sides to it.
	So I think you have, to a certain degree, you have some people, like the Q crowd, who really hope that the president is exercising more control than maybe sometimes appears to be the case.
	Then you have those who are skeptical of that interpretation, and their skepticism isn't rooted in any doubt about the president, even amongst the president's loyalists.
	It's a skepticism rooted in watching how American government has operated in the post-World War II era, especially.
	So, the evidence that the president is doing this with knowledge that he's going to expose people, there is some inferential evidence of that, and there's past precedent of him doing that.
	On the flip side, I am more on the skeptical side that he's able or capable of doing that, primarily because from witnessing government up close, from witnessing in the legal system for a long time, it's very difficult for any president, even a president of the United States, to exercise control over the administrative state.
	The administrative state has entrenched itself.
	That's why the theory or idea of the deep state is particularly applicable and apt.
	And it's the reason why the press and some of the political class and some of those within the deep state go a little bit nuts when people start calling them the deep state.
	So that's the it's because that's what they are.
	They're deeply entrenched.
	They're almost entirely immune in this virus era from actual democratic little d democratic controls.
	They have patrons in the billionaire class.
	They have patrons in the press.
	They have patrons in the think tanks and academia and the universities.
	And so they're so well entrenched that it's very hard to even challenge it and contest it.
	Simply look at raising questions about whether Bill Gates' public policy agenda is the best public policy agenda in this pandemic context.
	And you get massive pushback even from people on the political right or political allies.
	So thanks for your call.
	There's no question that it's a matter of how much control does the president really have?
	And I think a lot of us want to believe that in the democratic system, the elected head of the executive branch is in fact in charge of that executive branch.
	But the practical reality, as we are witnessing right now, is we're watching Bill Gates's pandemic policy put into place because he controls more of the important, relevant, pertinent people in the press and the administrative state than the elected president of the United States.
	Our only hope for salvation

▲