Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 14, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:46:32

20200414_Tue_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Tuesday, April 14th, 2020, or should we say Tuesday, April 14th, 1984, because it feels increasingly like 1984 out there in America today.
	People being arrested for protest in Raleigh, North Carolina, protesting the shutdown orders that are themselves unconstitutional and being told by the Raleigh police, who actually put it out on Twitter and other forms of social media, that protesting is simply not essential activities anymore in the United States of America.
	Resolved tonight, whether we're banning films or banning flags, America 2020 looks a lot more like 1984 than 1776.
	In fact, over the weekend, Bezos' company, Amazon, decided to ban and remove one of the more popular films on its platform.
	That film was called Hoaxed.
	It was a film and a documentary about the media exaggerating things like pandemics, crime, terror, foreign enemies, other events in order to induce state power or to propagate various press messages or PR messages of various politicians.
	So it is ironic, though maybe accurate, for such a suspension of basic civil rights to be occurring.
	And we'll be having a guest later on in the show, who is one of the producers, one of the people involved in making that film a reality.
	And why is it that Amazon decided to suddenly remove it, and under the false pretext that it was suddenly unavailable, when it's completely and fully and wholly available?
	The only reason it's been shut removed is because someone at Amazon decided they didn't want people to be able to watch it, particularly while people were watching it at a record level.
	Now you can only find it on other platforms.
	How long before it's banned in all places?
	And this puts us in a certain historical context.
	As we've seen with the Papers Please logic of various governments across the country requiring people to produce certain kinds of papers before they're able to have a basic exercise of their constitutional rights, whether it's to go to church or simply travel between states, or in the case of Michigan, you're no longer even able to travel between residences, even if both of them are your residences.
	That's the state we are at.
	In Michigan, you can't even buy a flag.
	In the entire country, in the entire world, you now can't buy Hoaxed, the film, on Amazon.
	You have to go to other platforms to try to get access to it.
	This goes back to another era, a longer era, an era where we were supposed to never repeat what happened then.
	Let's take a look at video clip number three from the film Indiana Jones, portraying what happened back in the 1930s in a place called Germany.
	A longer era, an era where we were supposed to never repeat what happened then.
	Let's take a look at video clip number three from the film Indiana Jones, portraying what happened back in the 1930s in a place called Germany.
	My boy, we're pilgrims in an unholy land.
	Come on, Doctor. Doctor.
	Sir?
	Where is it?
	How did you get here?
	Where is it?
	I want it!
	You came back with a book?
	Why?
	My father didn't want it incinerated.
	Is that what you think of me?
	I believe in the Grail, not this bastard.
	You stood up to be counted with the enemy of everything that the Grail stands for.
	Who gives a damn what you think?
	You do!
	All I have to do is squeeze.
	All I have to do is scream.
	Got it.
	Let's get the hell out of here.
	Let's get the hell out of here.
	Let's get the hell out of here.
	But just in case you thought it was an over-dramatization, let's look at video clip number two that's from the era that documented what happened in that time frame.
	In Berlin, like in other universities of Germany, were collected by students and publicly burned.
	The pile of rubbish on the opera house in Berlin.
	Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels speaks to the youth.
	My fellow citizens, German men and women, the age of advanced Jewish intellectualism has come to an end.
	And the breakthrough of the German Revolution has cleared the way for the German way.
	And the future German man will not only be a man of the book, ...but also a man of character.
	And that's what we want to teach you.
	To have the courage at a young age... ...to look life into the eyes of the heartless.
	To forget the fear of death... ...in order to regain reverence before death.
	That is the task of this young genus.
	And that's why it's good for you to trust this midnight hour, the spirit of the past, the Klammenamt.
	This is a strong, great and symbolic action.
	An action that should document all over the world.
	Here sings The spiritual foundation of the November Republic is to be laid.
	But from these ruins, the victorious level of the phoenix of a new spirit will rise.
	The End
	The End When they start banning films and banning flags, it's time to wake up in America.
	We're at a place where people can't go to church on Easter Sunday without being threatened with arrest, where people cannot get out and actually protest without actually being arrested, as happened today in North Carolina, where people are unable to purchase guns in their self-defense in many parts of the country due to either suspended background checks or suspended gun store operations by various state or local order.
	We're in a place where people's medical privacy is being disclosed against their informed consent by having it put into various apps and programs and shared with everybody from Google to the New York Times, while your location is being constantly surveilled and monitored for the purposes of the government invading your privacy even further.
	Your business is being removed without any form of just compensation or due process of law, and yet we're supposed to accept all of this and not protest it, not contest it, not question it.
	That's the state of affairs that we're at.
	Let's go back and look at another video clip that talks about how this happened.
	If you go back and think about it, do you think any people of Jewish ancestry or people that were disabled or people that were gypsies or any of the people that were targeted by Nazi Germany thought it was going to happen there?
	Thought it was going to happen that very next day or the next week?
	They would have left.
	They would have fled.
	It's because not enough people contested and protested at the time that it allowed the government to go further and further and further down the rabbit hole.
	Let's look at video clip number one from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
	Books represent humanity at its best and its worst.
	To burn books is simply a fundamental repression of ideas.
	I mean, what can a book do?
	And why is it so dangerous that it needs to be physically annihilated?
	In 1933, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, called the Nazis for short, came to power in Germany and established a dictatorship under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.
	The Nazis intended to rearm Germany and to reorganize the German state on the principle that the German ethnic group or race was superior to all others in Europe.
	They suppressed all dissent Within Germany, making it a crime to criticize the regime.
	The newly established Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment set up various chambers to control specific aspects of German culture such as art, literature, theater, film, music, virtually all forms of entertainment and all forms of dissemination of news.
	In 1933, in April, Nazi German students decided to organize a nationwide book-burning program to eliminate foreign influence, to purify German culture as they saw it.
	So you have committees of students meeting with professors together, deciding what categories of books in these university libraries would count as un-German.
	They didn't see themselves as suppressing culture, they saw themselves as advancing Aryan German culture.
	I remember very distinctly a conversation between my parents and some friends who were all shocked that a nation like the Germans An educated, highly intelligent nation would burn books.
	Books never hurt anybody.
	The event that the students planned occurred on May 10, 1933.
	In each German university city, 34 of them in all, thousands of people gathered together at a public place in which books that had been confiscated either by the students themselves or by Nazi party officials, often with the help of police, were brought and dumped in a pile
	Student leaders exhorted their followers and the listening crowds to swear an oath by the fire to destroy and combat subversive and un-German literature.
	For the national treason against our soldiers in World War I, we're burning Hemingway's books.
	Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister himself, spoke at the book burning in Berlin.
	It is amazing to me the variety of books that was burned on that night and thereafter.
	It is amazing to me the variety of books that was burned on that night and thereafter.
	Among the authors whose books were burned were Ernest Hemingway, both Mann brothers, Thomas Anne Heinrich.
	There's the German writer, Erich Maria Remar, who wrote the famous book "All Quiet on the Western Front." Helen Keller.
	Jack London, the American nature writer.
	There's very little that unites all of these books, really, except that they were all considered dangerous by the Nazis.
	A grand total of the number of volumes, perhaps best estimates would be between 80 or 90,000 volumes.
	For weeks afterwards, books were confiscated from libraries, from bookshops, and from private collections.
	In 1939, The Nazi regime initiated what became the Second World War.
	During the course of this war, the Nazis began to implement their population policy, a priority element of which was the annihilation of six million Jews on the European continent in a mass murder, a genocide that we now call the Holocaust.
	I was about 11 when I read the diary of Anne Frank and it was translated into Persian.
	Reading about Anne Frank and millions of other Iranians reading Anne Frank, they discover that they are that little girl and that what happened to that little girl was a supreme act of injustice.
	And so they connect to her in a way that no political sermon or propaganda could effect.
	The first thing every totalitarian regime does, along with confiscation and mutilation of reality, is confiscation of history and confiscation of culture.
	I think they all happen almost simultaneously.
	They surely happened in my experience when I was living in Iran.
	For me it's both heartbreaking and quote-unquote a sort of badge of honor that my book is not allowed to be published in Iran.
	It has been translated into 35 languages and not in Persian.
	Really, all literature is dangerous to a regime that fears the free flow of ideas.
	Because the literature in its most fundamental way is meant to forge connections among human beings.
	Because you don't know where it takes you.
	Knowledge is always unpredictable.
	There is always a risk.
	It is like Alice jumping down that hole, running after that white rabbit, not knowing where she goes.
	And for tyrants, control is the main thing.
	They don't like this unpredictability.
	They don't want the citizens to connect to the unknown parts of themselves, of their past, and to connect to the world.
	So for a totalitarian regime, this is perhaps the most dangerous thing.
	Because these regimes are predicated on the idea that the people within them will resign themselves to thinking that this is all there is and that there aren't any other options.
	I think the shame is ours.
	Is everyone's.
	We all have to think that as human we share the best and the worst.
	And that as human beings what happened then How serious those warning signs were taken is exemplified by my mother.
	When I asked her if we had to worry about a guy like Hitler, she said, no.
	We are living in a democracy.
	We have the protection of the police.
	Nobody's going to hurt us.
	So talk about warning sight.
	There were plenty of them.
	Did we take them serious?
	My family didn't.
	Never believed that Germans would stoop so low.
	That they would implement the threats which one fanatic uttered.
	And so our own life went from bad to worse and culminated in July of 1942 when we were arrested and sent to a concentration camp.
	To make this clear, it was a life without hope.
	The only thing that they cannot put in jail But the idea of freedom should be kept alive, even if it's between two people or three people.
	is your mind, is your imagination.
	That cannot be captured.
	But the idea of freedom should be kept alive, even if it's between two people or three people.
	Talk about it, think about it, live about it, and hope about it.
	We're back to a place and to a state where we have, in different parts of the country, not only are flags being banned, now films are being banned.
	We're in a position where governments are arresting people for protest, arresting people for going to church.
	You can't leave your home without permission.
	You can't go to work without permission.
	Sometimes you can't go to work, period.
	You can't own a business without permission.
	You can't operate a business without permission.
	And in some cases, that permission has been completely withdrawn for 50, 60, 70% of businesses in America.
	And now we even have health sharia law in parts of the country, where if you don't wear designated clothing, you're not allowed to go out in public.
	In this case, in this context, it's a mask, even though the politicians just a month ago told us not to buy and not to wear masks.
	So we still don't even know the certainty in which masks are either net positive or net negative.
	The health authorities disagree on that.
	They disagreed with themselves just 30 days ago.
	And now we're going to have health sharia law in large parts of the country where you can't even go outside without wearing what the government tells you to wear?
	We're going to have our own version of a yellow star on our outfits?
	This is just another version of the digital certificate that both Bill Gates has called for and and recently Fauci has called for.
	Another form of a yellow star before you're allowed to participate publicly in various events that were originally constitutionally protected.
	That has led to a wide range of lawsuits from people that, first of all, in Pennsylvania, people have brought suits.
	In this case, a small business in Pennsylvania that makes bells for musicians and others has filed suit against the governor of Pennsylvania, noting that what happened is what's called a taking.
	Now what's that?
	Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has analogous provisions in various state constitutions as well, your business, your property cannot be taken from you without just compensation by the government.
	And it cannot be taken from you without due process of law and without equal protection of law.
	That is a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment mandate and requirement.
	It in fact was designed to make sure the descendants of slaves would be protected against retaliatory action from southern state authorities after the Civil War.
	The 5th Amendment has been there from the very beginning of the founding of the country.
	It was part of the original 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
	And what that provides for is that your business cannot be taken from you without the government justly compensating you for that value of that business.
	If there's a public benefit to taking that business, That this is sort of eminent domain or something like it, where in this case, effectively, governors and mayors across the country have issued eminent domain on everybody's businesses almost universally.
	There's very few businesses that are not part of this.
	The point is that when you do that, you have to justly compensate people for the loss of their business.
	That isn't what's happening.
	People are getting small checks from the federal government.
	They're getting pretty much nothing from the state and local government that's just decided to seize their property en masse.
	Now why do that?
	Because most politicians, if they had to pay just compensation, don't take the business or property in the first place.
	And you have a property interest not only in your business, but in your profession, in your licensure, and in many cases in your vocation and occupation.
	You clearly have a due process and equal protection right before the government can take away your occupation or vocation, yet they're doing that across the board.
	There are people from barbers and nail salons to people who do provide massages to people who provide wide ranges of medical care.
	All kinds of care that often goes, psychiatric care, often goes to mental or physical health or well-being, whether it's grooming or other activities that now are being denied that.
	Not only the customer being denied the opportunity to get the benefit of it, but the provider being denied the opportunity to provision it.
	And this is happening all across the country.
	That is what is led to first this class action suit brought in Pennsylvania, alleging that small businesses who operate on a month or two of cash reserves at the most, the average is approximately 29 days, that the Fifth Amendment was violated.
	And what happened?
	As another, in fact, as the lawsuit, as this article details, the lawsuit alleges it's a Shomerick Bells in Hartsfield, Pennsylvania, in Bucks County, right outside of Philadelphia.
	A maker of handbells for musicians.
	Filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the way the state imposed its closure orders wrongly took away the business and wages of its workers.
	Part of that lawsuit is not just the business, but the employees that no longer have a business to go work for, no longer have wages, and increasingly, quickly, soon, will no longer have health insurance to cover the potential health care costs they may need.
	As the New York Times reported, there are lawsuits swell as owners from gun shops to golf courses demand to open.
	This includes a class action suit in Pennsylvania that joined a lawyer, a realtor, a logger, a politician, and a laundry owner.
	There's golf courses, public golf courses, private golf courses that say they should be able to function when they're simply outdoors and pose no imminent risk of infection spread by being open while providing a necessary means of aesthetically enjoying the environment, of being outside, of exercise, and actually things that usually are healthy.
	As the New York Times article reports, there is expected to be a wave of lawsuits as state governments extend these shutdown orders across the country.
	There are suits now pending in Arizona, noting that the Fifth Amendment requires both due process and guarantees compensation for property seized by the government.
	There are additional lawsuits brought on behalf of gun stores and gun owners that are happening across the country.
	Increasingly, people are taking up the call to bring legal action to remedy this extraordinary violation of constitutional privilege and liberty, including the right to freedom of assembly and the freedom of religion.
	The Chickasaw and Choctaw nations are bringing suit against state courts alleging that their various shutdowns of their casinos are not being properly compensated by insurers, just like Thomas Keller, the famous owner of the French Laundry in San Francisco, was doing.
	And class actions in Illinois pending on the same grounds.
	A lawsuit in New Hampshire about the infringement of basic rights of freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.
	In Pennsylvania, a suit for the list of banned businesses, which seems to change at random.
	Note that the politicians appear to be playing favorites, including by saying some businesses get protected and others not.
	There's, in fact, candy companies are protected, but people who provide fundamental services somehow are considered non-essential, just like political activity was described as non-essential.
	And what for?
	Well, for social distancing policies and protocols that are in fact being increasingly questioned as to their utility and their efficacy.
	Not to mention the models themselves being in great doubt as to whether they're even effective in the way they say they are.
	Richard Chavez, former public health official for Ontario, who was there during the SARS outbreak and saw what happened with the quarantine and how counter-effective it often was, has already condemned the reaction to this coronavirus outbreak in Canada and throughout the West.
	And wrote an article that was published in the various national health medical publications in which as he detailed an outbreak should meet the following three criteria for a quarantine to be a useful measure of disease control.
	The first people likely to be incubating the infection must be efficiently and effectively identified and then those people subject to quarantine.
	The SARS quarantine in Toronto was quote both inefficient and ineffective.
	According to the CDC, they concluded the quarantine should have been reduced by at least two-thirds, and it was nowhere near the scale of the mass house arrests taking place in the United States and the West.
	The CDC itself concluded that trying to quarantine something like a flu-related virus like this one is, like SARS was, ends up compromising effectiveness without any comparable benefit to the public.
	That's just one of the examples of the problems pending.
	So why are they banning flags?
	Why are they banning films?
	Why are they banning businesses?
	But when we come back in the next half of the hour, we'll talk with one of the producers of the film Hoax, whose film was just banned and prohibited from Amazon, and talk about what was in that film that scared the billionaires like Jeff Bezos so much.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	In the bottom half of the hour, we'll be discussing with Dave Lugo, one of the producers of the film that recently got banned.
	The name of the film was Hoaxed.
	It was about how the media operates to create narratives that are often distant from the truth, from not only sort of a subjective form of truth, but from the objective truth.
	And then while this was going on, while this pandemic panic was taking place across the country, And a wide range of discussion, debate and dialogue was occurring about what is happening and whom we can trust for information.
	During the same time period, the film hoax was of increasing interest.
	One of the places that you could find it available was Amazon at the Prime Video.
	Then suddenly, right as it was surging in interest, suddenly it was summarily removed.
	Let's look at a trailer from the film Hoax to see what it was about and what scared the billionaires so badly that they felt the necessity to remove it from the public eye in the case of Amazon.
	Let's look at video clip number four.
	I am officially running. - Thank you.
	For President of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again.
	So help me God.
	Congratulations Mr. President.
	How do we explain how this is possible?
	How did this happen?
	Since election day, questions have been raised about the role that false news stories distributed online played in the final result.
	There's been a lot of talk lately about fake news.
	Fake news.
	Fake news.
	Hoax sites and hyper-partisan blogs.
	A threat to democracy.
	All media is narrative.
	And we are in a war of narratives.
	I think it's interesting to have someone like Mike doing a documentary about fake news because it's owning a term that has been directed at him.
	Until it happens to you, you can't really understand how powerful the fake news is.
	People who have been printed in the media a lot can start to identify who's fake news.
	I've been lied about repeatedly.
	My friends have been lied about.
	Because they know their true story more than anyone.
	I don't have to frame them.
	I just have to talk about what they've done.
	We are told by the media what the world is.
	We are told what is right, what is wrong, what to believe, who to love, who to hate.
	I think that the media will gin up controversy to create an environment of discontent.
	You've got it wrong!
	You've got it wrong!
	There are people on both sides who just want us to go to war.
	Congressman Steve Scalise has been shot.
	The suspect was upset over the election of President Trump.
	Falsehoods have consequences.
	That's what makes them false.
	Like, that's unbelievable.
	I don't understand why I haven't heard of this.
	In a way, then, the media is designed not to inform you, but to keep you uninformed.
	I have over 3,000-4,000 friends on Facebook.
	I've never seen that story publicly.
	So as soon as they introduced the idea that news could be fake, it was turned against them almost immediately.
	Now we're in a war with them to determine who's real fake news.
	So we welcome Dave Lugo, one of the key producers of the film Hoax.
	Glad you could be here with us, Dave.
	Thank you, Robert.
	Thank you for having me.
	Steve, could you describe sort of how you became involved and what your point and purpose and role was in trying to get a film like Hoax out to the public originally?
	Well, my role is I was one of the producers who came in to provide finishing funds, and I secured the distribution deal for the team.
	So Mike came in and showed me a cut of the film early in 2017, and I was just blown away.
	It looks like he spent a million dollars.
	So I immediately wanted to get involved.
	But I've been involved with documentary films for a while.
	Actually, a film I found on InfoWars, A Good American, I helped produce.
	So I, you know, I've been involved in this.
	I really love what you are doing at InfoWars and I respect the alternative media.
	So I think it was just a match made in heaven.
	And for you, what was important about getting a film like Hoaxed out in terms of what its message was, its content was, to sort of educate and edify the broader public about how institutional narratives are shaped by the press today?
	Well, it's just, I have a Cuban background.
	So my family came here after the revolution and my grandfather actually spent some time in prison for, you know, considered spreading propaganda.
	So I've always been interested in propaganda.
	And I essentially, I wanted to figure out what, what I was seeing in the 2016 election, whether or not it was true.
	And when, you know, I follow guys like Mike and And I really respect his ideas.
	I don't agree with 100% of the stuff that he says, but that's what's amazing about this country.
	You have such a variety of information out there.
	And when I saw actions taken against Alex Jones and other alternative media personalities, I just thought it's now or never.
	You have to step up.
	And I think hoax is a powerful tool in the modern day information war.
	And what was it from your ancestors' experience in Cuba that educated you as to the risk that gets posed once we start going down the path of both creating false narratives but also suppressing independent narratives?
	Well, essentially, if you have a mentality that is focused on one narrative and you know that that narrative is not true, then you start shaping the world to a lie.
	And that's what I love about this country is that we have such a media and technology industries that we understand bits and pieces of everything, and we're able to form our own opinion.
	And we don't have to fear being thrown in prison for handing out a pamphlet that disagrees with the state, essentially.
	So that's what I learned.
	At least until today in North Carolina, where apparently they were threatened with arrest for no more than political protest.
	What's interesting is the film seems particularly apt for this time and place, when we're dealing with extraordinary politicians' activities in the sense of suppressing civil liberties in ways we've never witnessed before.
	Mass house arrest, denial of First Amendment rights, either of religious expression, peaceable assembly, Political protest, political participation, Second Amendment rights to purchase guns for your self-defense, either due to the suspension of gun store operations, or due to the inability to travel to that gun store in some cases, or the complete suspension of background checks being effectively processed.
	And Fourth Amendment violations in the sense of the Fourth Amendment being effectively suspended for protecting people's medical privacy from being disclosed to third parties against their will or consent, while their privacy is being invaded and being tracked and traced in ways that rarely happen or have never happened or have been approved of in the United States before.
	Fifth Amendment rights of taking away people's professions, vocations, occupations, property and businesses without just compensation or due process of law.
	And what you talk about in there, and I thought was useful about, particularly applicable for a hoax, is it's a nonpartisan, non-ideological approach to this.
	It has people that are on the left, it has people that are on the right, it has people that are independent voices that simply contest and question the establishment narrative of their own lives, and are often shocked within the documentary When they find out something they thought was absolute truth turned out not to be, or some narrative that they had never even heard before because of how well the big gatekeepers had suppressed dissident information.
	Could you describe some of the, what was some of the best parts of the film for you in helping people to realize that?
	I think it's that scene that you're talking about with Hawk Newsome, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter.
	He talked about having thousands of fans and followers and friends on Facebook.
	But never once did an article come across his page that gave a point of view that, you know, not all church shootings were happening against blacks.
	It was church shootings against blacks and whites.
	It's just attacks on people.
	And it really is an eye opener.
	Specifically at that time when race tensions were at a point where it was scary.
	And I'm, you know, I come from a minority background.
	I had a similar ecosystem, essentially, where I wasn't seeing certain things.
	And that's the scary thing.
	And, and I saw a tweet today that someone said, Mike, Mike had made a film about media lies and narrative, and essentially, censorship, and then he was banned for doing so.
	So the irony is so it's, it's, it's overwhelming.
	But I think that's what makes me proud of being part of this, because it is It's a new movement in film, and it's a movement to take back an essential part of our culture, which is film, entertainment.
	I think we have to start making projects like this to really open people's eyes.
	And this film, it was a home run from the second I saw it, I knew it was a home run.
	And can you talk about what was happening in terms of the film's popularity when the shutdown orders started?
	In terms of the, I mean, the degree to which it was surging, there was increasing public interest.
	Could you talk about what was happening before it suddenly got banned by Amazon?
	Well, like you said, we were, we jumped up.
	Immediately after releasing to number four on the iTunes list and people started looking it up and it started being referred to people in the top sellers on Amazon with films like Uncut Gems.
	Now Mike put up an amazing tweet before which really put things into perspective.
	Uncut Gems had a $19 million budget.
	Hoax had $290,000 and we're neck and neck in sales.
	And I don't think, I don't think Amazon wanted to see this film was actually taking shots at them because specifically through Alex Jones interview But I don't think they wanted to see the little guy getting that much power We were because we our message touches a lot of people's lives right now specifically in this time period with Corona We were there's so much uncertainty that
	We're going to one news source and we're not sure if we should listen to them.
	And then people wanted to see if anyone else was feeling the same way.
	And boom, comes hoax.
	Like, the perfect timing.
	Hoax arrives and tells you, you know, maybe not everything you're seeing on TV is true.
	And it really, I think, just resonated with A lot of people and it's continuing to go out.
	I mean, there are major television actors who are now starting to tweet about hoax.
	AP just came out and we're on the top.
	We're number eight on the independent film sellers list.
	So the strides in effect really hit us right now.
	And we're so thankful to people like you, Alex, everyone who supported the film.
	It's just been, I'm proud to say I'm part of this team.
	Bravo to Mike, bravo to John and Scooter who are the directors.
	This was an amazing accomplishment and I think everyone should be proud.
	And can you talk about when did you first get noticed that suddenly it was going to no longer, as it was surging up the charts at Amazon Prime and other places, when did you get noticed that suddenly Amazon was not going to make it available anymore to people?
	Well Mike actually, we're in a group text message and Mike Hit us up and told us, hey, it's off.
	And he showed us a picture where it says it's no longer available.
	I reached out to our distributor and they confirmed it about the next day, I believe.
	Yeah, it was no technical issue.
	They took it down.
	So it really just kind of came out of nowhere.
	But immediately after it was taken down, Mike does what Mike does best.
	And he went to Twitter and the support came in.
	Which was very, very humbling to see how many people wanted to help this team.
	And it's, you know, most films have teams of 20, 30 people on the PR end.
	We had four just kind of tweeting and connecting with people, which is why I think it's an authentic film that people really enjoy because they know we're right here.
	You know, we're selling you this film, not a team of salespeople.
	Well, you don't need to ban books or movies that are unpopular or unsuccessful.
	When the Nazis were doing it, they weren't going through and finding the books that no one had ever bought to burn out in public.
	It was some of the most popular, most effective, most impactful authors throughout history, including German authors.
	I mean, they were burning everybody.
	The pretext was they wanted to preserve true German culture.
	The truth was they were trying to get rid of anything that questioned or challenged or contested the Nazi agenda at that time period.
	And hoax does the same thing, particularly at In a time frame in which people are being subject to media manipulation of an incredible scale.
	When you have people like the mayor of LA saying snitches are no longer going to get stitches, they're going to get riches if they simply spy on their neighbors.
	Do you see somebody playing t-ball with their daughter in the backyard?
	Go arrest them.
	Do you see somebody like Jack Murphy lifting weights in his front lawn in Washington, D.C.?
	Get him arrested.
	Do you see somebody wanting to go to church on Easter Sunday in their own car with rolled-up windows, listening on their radio?
	Make sure they get cited, as happened in Kentucky.
	Take down their license plates.
	There was no advance notice.
	meeting at a Klan rally in the 1950s.
	That's been the mindset, the mentality of these politicians and the press.
	And films like this are critical to push back against it.
	And thus, it's no surprise that there's been this effort to censor it.
	But let me ask you, was there any advance notice?
	Has Amazon responded to any of the inquiries?
	Have they provided any meaningful explanation?
	What's happened in that part of the process?
	There was no advance notice.
	This just happened and it happened.
	And I think the most, the best explanation we got from Amazon was a tweet that they had issued to someone who had purchased the film on Amazon and was asking how they can get it back.
	And I believe Cassandra Fairbranks just published an article for Gateway Pundit that shows that tweet, but we don't have any explanation.
	They said, you know, they kind of gave us the whole We're a private company thing.
	We choose to carry your product or not, essentially.
	And have they yet been honest?
	Because at least what's currently there is that the film is unavailable, not that we've decided to censor it.
	Have they admitted that to the public in the sense of why they're doing what they're doing?
	As far as I know, no.
	They were also selling our DVD and they stopped selling that as well.
	So somehow there was a unilateral decision made overnight without disclosure to the actual producers.
	And I assume Amazon up to this point has been sharing in the profits of people purchasing the film, right?
	We get the numbers at the end of the month, so we should know where we stand.
	But if some of the people who purchased the film don't have the film anymore, I'm assuming they're issuing refunds.
	But we have no communication with them at this point.
	So yeah, so I guess one of the additional issues is not only can people no longer get it on Amazon, those people who had downloaded it from Amazon can now no longer watch it or show it to their friends or family or other people.
	Correct, yes.
	As far as I know, that's what we're hearing, yes.
	And Amazon to date has not offered any explanation for that, any guarantee of a refund, nothing.
	They just removed unilaterally.
	It's like everybody had a book in their library, and because it's digital now, in the form of films, they just went into everybody's library, millions of people around the world, and just ripped it out of their library without any notice, any consent, or any refund.
	That's how it appears.
	Scary, honestly, to admit that, but, you know, I hope I'm hoping, I'm trying to be optimistic that at one point in the near future we'll get some explanation.
	But as of right now, that's our situation.
	And in your experience in the film distribution aspect of this, is this something you've witnessed something at this scale or size before?
	No.
	And I had a film, A Good American follows Bill Binney, the former technical director of the NSA.
	And that film was premiered on Netflix, we were in the New York Times, they covered it on all the major publications.
	But this little film, Mike Cernovich has, I think it hit him a little harder than they thought.
	Now, where can people find, what platforms is it still available currently that people can get access to and hopefully download it in a way they can keep from disappearing, but at least watch it while it's still out there and isn't banned from all these other platforms.
	Well, as of right now, iTunes is the number one platform, but we are also on Vudu, YouTube, Vimeo, Fandango.com.
	We are on all the major video-on-demand platforms for your cable box.
	So if you look out there, I mean, Prime was a major part of our business plan, but we're out there.
	You just have to look a little harder now.
	So people can go to Apple iTunes and download it.
	People can go to YouTube and purchase it.
	People can go to Vimeo or any other sort of video on demand services, Fandango, and all of those places, they can still go and watch it before those places suddenly decide to remove it overnight.
	Well, I hope that they see we're great clients.
	They see the numbers now.
	But yes, as of right now, those are the platforms.
	To stay updated, hoaxmovie.com.
	Mike's always updating it, the team's always updating it.
	And of course, follow Mike on Twitter.
	He has the amazing ability to keep you updated faster than a robot.
	That man is constantly pushing information out.
	So that's hoaxedmovie.com?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So hoaxmovie.com or they can go to at Cernovich on Twitter, either one of those places and be able to sort of track or go to cernovich.com.
	I presume he's keeping updates there as well as to what's happening.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Um, and I'm sorry.
	Yeah, no, no, go ahead.
	I was just going to say, um, John and Scooter also, um, they're great to follow.
	I actually don't have their Twitter handle.
	I'm trying to plug them.
	I apologize, but John Scooter, go look them up on the film and find them on Twitter.
	They're amazing, talented young directors, I think, have a very bright future in this industry.
	Now I know that sort of Mike has somewhat of a cynical approach, a skeptical approach to how things work, so this might not have been that big of a shock to him.
	How much of it was it a shock to you and the other directors on the project that something like this happened?
	That just when it's surging, just when there's mass public interest, there's no controversial history with any of you, none of you have been banned from anything before, there's no lawsuits pending against you, there's simply no public, there's nobody complaining about the film anywhere.
	There's no public, there's no pretext at all for the censorship or suppression that occurred here.
	It's not rooted in any contract.
	Amazon has provided no excuse whatsoever.
	They've taken away people's property without either due process or without any sort of just compensation.
	They're lucky that they're a private entity, so they're not limited by governmental restrictions, but they may be obligated under contractual obligations to at least refund people.
	But how much of it was a surprise or shock to people other than Mike in terms of what happened here?
	Honestly, Mike prepared us for this.
	Mike told us when we signed the deal with our distributor, just be prepared, you might get a lot of kickback.
	We didn't believe him that much, but as soon as it happened, we were like, oh wow, he did a good job of preparing us.
	Are you surprised that America has come to the place where at least some of its private companies, now some government officials in different parts of the country, are acting as if we're in Cuba?
	The way I've described it to people is, in the United States, we will happily have 77 years of American freedom instead of 78 years of Cuban oppression.
	Cuba has one year longer life expectancy, but there's very few people in Cuba that aren't willing to risk their entire lives simply to get to the United States, whereas there's very few people in the United States trying to beg to live out in Cuba.
	It's a beautiful place, beautiful island, great people, great culture, great history, great coffee, great rum, great cigars, but by no means is it a great government to live under in the current setting.
	It gives you safety, it gives you security.
	Because you're constantly surveilled.
	You're constantly monitored.
	You're not allowed to go anywhere.
	You don't have enough money to simply buy a bottle of rum.
	You have to save up for a year to maybe get one.
	And then you get to all share it along the Malecon in Havana.
	That's the scope and scale of it there.
	And yet it seems like we have many Americans now willing to sacrifice.
	78 years of 77 years of American-style liberty and freedom for a 78 years of mass house arrest.
	We have people talking about being under shutdowns and lockdowns, not now for months, but maybe for years.
	We have Obama officials saying maybe we just need rolling lockdowns.
	I am.
	But I was a little more surprised a few years ago.
	They shut down the lights three nights out of the seven.
	There's no power, rolling power lockouts.
	So are you surprised that parts of America have got to a place that people like yourself and your family left Cuba to make sure would never happen again?
	I am.
	But I was a little more surprised a few years ago.
	I think people like Alex Jones, people like yourself, Mike Cernovich, a lot of the other independent thought leaders as of right now, you prepared me for this.
	And I think it was a real eye opener when Alex was banned from all the platforms simultaneously.
	That was the moment where I had to accept this is where we are.
	And I think that was also the moment where I said, I'm going to do everything in my power to fight back.
	And I think this is a great step.
	It's scary where we are right now.
	This herd mentality.
	But we are America.
	We are the greatest country there ever was.
	Because of that thing that Alex talks about, the rugged individualism.
	That's what makes this country great.
	And people like myself can come from a background where my family escaped Cuba.
	And now I'm here talking to you and talking about a movie that I helped produce.
	That's top of the charts right now.
	God bless America.
	I know we're in rough times right now, everybody, but we're going to get through it.
	When we come back, we'll have one last question for Dave about what people can do in order to not only get the movie, but also in their everyday life, make the movie a reality for their functioning in resisting the various forms of political oppression we're witnessing across the country.
	We also recommend that you go, as long as it's still legal to do so, to InfoWarsStore.com.
	That's our sponsor that makes this platform viable, where you can still buy things legally in the United States and still get it legally delivered while it's still the case.
	The British are coming.
	The British are coming.
	You are about to be on the street today.
	And one for a prayer.
	America first.
	And one for a second.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're here with Dave Lugo, one of the key producers to the film Hoaxed, which was suddenly and summarily removed from people's digital libraries all around the world this past week, simply because it was becoming increasingly popular and successful at a time when the politicians and the press want to push various pandemic panics and media narratives of dubious nature and quality to the world.
	So we're here with Dave, and we're glad you could make it with us here, Dave.
	Dave, what would be your what what do you plan on doing in terms of trying to push back against some of this institutional control or what Eric what Eric Weinstein and Peter Thiel call the gatekeeper institutional narrative?
	This attempt to control the narrative at this critical juncture where constitutional liberties are being quarantined, where people are under mass house arrest, where the economy is getting crushed and where we really don't know whom to trust.
	Well, you know, we have our major medical health officials one day saying don't buy masks.
	The next day saying we're going to have medical Sharia law and you have to wear masks like it's a yellow star in 1930s Germany.
	So in that context, what do you recommend?
	What are you going to try to personally do and what do you recommend other people do to try to push back against this gatekeeper institutional narrative?
	Aside from the importance of watching films like hoaxed, getting people involved and connected in that way.
	Thank you.
	Well, personally, I intend on building an ecosystem of independent filmmakers like John, like Scooter, like Mike.
	I know there's a lot of us out there that That have the passion, have the drive, have the knowledge, just don't have the confidence.
	And it's tough because, as you say, we all look at Hollywood as that gatekeeper.
	That if you don't make it in Hollywood, you're never gonna make it, so get out of here.
	Put the camera down, put a tie on, go to your nine to five.
	That mindset is something I've personally experienced and I think I can help people overcome.
	So connecting with guys like John Scooter, Mike, anybody else out there that wants to make movies, because in this modern day, filmmaking, whether it be narratives or documentaries, is important.
	This world needs a release.
	They need also to understand that there are other people who think like that.
	It's not just what you're being fed from Hollywood.
	There are people who have a kindred soul.
	That might not agree with everything coming out of Hollywood, which essentially, as we know, a lot of it's coming from China.
	So that's my job.
	I want to bring back American cinema.
	I want to put out a call for all filmmakers.
	Hey, let's get together.
	Let's make some movies.
	What I think other people can do personally, get active.
	If you see what Alex Jones does, he has a team of reporters who go out there With cell phone footage, what Owen Schroyer does is very, it's inspiring.
	You know, he's a tough guy, man.
	He goes out there and puts himself on the line, but he's doing it for the right reasons.
	And I think, you know, if you can't do that, get right.
	Or just talk to people.
	Share the news.
	Tell them, hey, don't feel like you can't talk about this.
	Make those spaces safe.
	I mean, maybe we should make conservative safe spaces.
	People, you know, come together and it's okay to talk about something that's not on Hollywood Reporter or New York Times.
	Because it's fulfilling to think outside the box, my personal opinion.
	So, my advice, think outside the box, get active, and don't be afraid to really express who you are.
	So basically, in other words, it's time to sort of break down the gates of the gatekeeper institutional narrative, whether it's going around it, going underneath it, going over it, or just running right through it.
	And what you're talking about is building a team of independent documentary filmmakers to get independent ideas out there, using alternative distribution mechanisms to break through sort of the Hollywood monopoly on it.
	And the thing everybody can do as an ordinary individual, they can share the links, share the stories, share connections, share contacts, share relationships, build a real-life underground railroad of information, sort of a freedom train of the modern age, equivalent to what the abolitionist movement of the 1850s did to help bring anti-slavery causes to the fore.
	People can do the same by spreading information, by transmitting that information, by supporting those places that are providing free information.
	So the and by going to places in terms of getting films like Hoax following people on social media spreading the message themselves either about that film or about other films or other important content and information and making it a reality and through that they can make sure that the old statement The old founders of some of the great constitutional liberties of our country said that there are two great schools of learning that can never be closed.
	That's the archives of nature and the conscience of man.
	And the idea is that we can always appeal to those that no longer, no matter how much we oppress or suppress information, no matter how many libraries they close, no matter how many books they burn, no matter how many films they ban, they cannot close people's minds from the reality in front of them.
	Whether you consider that a reality given by God or given by any other form of deity or religious belief, that reality keeps educating us and edifying us as to what truth really is, and the seeking of it, and the searching out for it, and in the promotion of it.
	And so what you did is great with the film.
	I recommend everybody watch it, view it, definitely get it before it's gone everywhere, just in case it is gone everywhere.
	Just like I recommend people go to our sponsor InfoWarsStore.com and get whatever product they like now before it's banned tomorrow.
	It's on somebody's non-essential list.
	It's on somebody's non-male list.
	There's nothing more essential than the exercise of our constitutional liberties and there's little things less, even more, that could be less essential than films like Hoax that educate us, that edify us, that give us practical, actionable information and intel that we can use and how to filter and frame out the information we're giving.
	So thanks for being with us, Dave.
	I really appreciate it.
	It was my pleasure.
	Thank you.
	Keep up everything you guys are doing.
	I love the show.
	And hopefully we'll see you guys again on another one.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks, man.
	So you can go to hoaxedmovie.com, you can go to iTunes or other places, whatever, YouTube, whatever your favorite mechanism of video on demand is, whether it's Vimeo or other places, and through those you can find and watch Hoaxed for yourself.
	It's not a partisan or overtly political film, it simply goes into how the media tries to frame the narrative, how it often tries to frame people in that context.
	How it tries to frame issues and ideas in that context.
	And so why is it that suddenly there was this deep interest by Amazon to suppress this precise film from people's public viewing?
	One of the few films to ever be banned summarily, suddenly, and suspended by Amazon without notice to its own customers, not to mention its content creators and distributors.
	Well, maybe it relates to what's happening right now in America.
	So let's look at just one example.
	One of the conventional wisdoms out there that all of the politicians are relying upon for the complete removal of our core constitutional liberties and rights is that the quarantine is successful, that the mass house arrest is required and compelled, that this medical sharia law of wearing masks is necessary, medically necessary for the protection of civil society, that people simply driving around in their cars are somehow a threat to one another and themselves.
	But what does the medical data really reveal?
	Well, we'll get into that in just a second, but we're going to put out a number for you to call in and for you, the jury, to give your ideas, your questions, your commentary.
	That number is 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	If you're calling internationally, you can dial 1-512-646-1776.
	That's 1-512-646-1776.
	Let's go back to that medical report that has been repressed in the current era, where people like Richard Chavez, a public health official dealing with infectious disease for a long time in Canada before he retired, wrote about all the mistakes Toronto made in trying to deal with the SARS virus, which is very comparable to this coronavirus.
	And one of the main points he made is, quote, and this is from the article from the Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology.
	Here's what his conclusion was.
	This analysis suggests that Toronto quarantined at least 25 times more people than was appropriate.
	As the article goes on to say, public health officials should quarantine no one.
	Instead, they should identify and observe close contacts of cases, i.e.
	people with a reasonable suspicion or probable cause of SARS, and those close contacts should be isolated if and only if they develop symptoms consistent with the disease.
	There should not be, not only was he saying should there be no mass house arrest, he was saying there should be no mass quarantining of any kind.
	In fact, we should only be looking at the people who present an imminent risk of infectious harm to themselves and others, and only those people where there's a high degree of certainty, a high degree of reasonable suspicion, that's an old legal term of art, not just a medical term of art from this publication, And only then should we simply isolate them, not necessarily quarantine them, for their own benefit and the benefit of others.
	That has in fact always been the quarantine constitutional standard in the United States until this pandemic.
	Until this one, you could not have any of your constitutional liberties restricted or limited Unless and until a health official could say there is reasonable suspicion that you have a communicable infectious disease that can be transmitted to others if you engage in the particular activity that they say you cannot behave it or engage.
	So in other words there has to be a compelling public interest And that compelling public interest only being met if you individually, they have reasonable suspicion, carries this virus.
	And then the remedy, the means of remedy, has to be narrowly tailored so that it's only that if that particular activity you're engaged in poses a high degree of risk to yourself and others, that you're not allowed to engage in that activity, particularly when it is constitutionally core rights protected under the law.
	None of that has happened.
	They're not suspending or suppressing the rights of people they have any reason to suspect of any infectious disease.
	Indeed, even people that have been completely cleared of the virus, even people for whom there is extremely minuscule risk of any debilitating or disabling disease from the virus, they too are having their constitutional rights restrained and restricted as if they are carrying the disease and are highly communicable with the disease.
	That sense of reasonable suspicion, that term, dates back to a case, United States v. Terry, that required that before the police could even stop you on the street for any reason, identification or otherwise, they had to have reasonable suspicion that you engage in criminal activity.
	A little bit lower than probable cause, but much higher than the standard we're seeing today.
	This is why Mayor Bloomberg's stop and frisk policy was clearly unconstitutional from day one because they were doing it based on demographics of age and race and gender.
	They were not doing it based on individualized reasonable suspicion against an actual individual.
	Yet that's what's happening today.
	People are under mass house arrest.
	And having their rights restrained and restricted even though there is no suspicion that they have a transmittable disease that can be communicated to others.
	And at the same time, the restraints, the particular remedy that's being put upon them, is not at all narrowly tailored to preventing the transmission of this disease.
	The idea that going to, if you can go to a lottery store to buy a lottery ticket, if you can go to a grocery store, if you can go to a liquor store, you can buy a lottery ticket or buy a drive-thru liquor store, but you can't go to church?
	How are those two activities somehow not a risk?
	But doing the exact same thing, physically driving in your car and staying in a parking lot at a church service on Easter Sunday, somehow is a high risk?
	That makes no sense.
	That's not a rational basis and it's definitely not narrowly tailored legal standards to a compelling public interest.
	In the same context, the reason why films like Hoaxed are being banned is because the media narrative, if we look at graph number two, was that we were going to have hospital over capacity across the country.
	That's why they're building these big sort of mobile warlike looking tents.
	that had these sort of out in places like Central Park, out in places like in football fields across the country.
	Big, big tents like this that were going to have to have overcapacity because our hospitals were going to look like war zones.
	So they created warlike looking hospitals.
	But none of that actually occurred.
	Let's look at video graph number three.
	And we see the latest change in total hospitalizations from New York, the epicenter of the epidemic here in the United States.
	And in fact, what we see is the change in hospitalizations has gone down and down and down and down.
	The models were wrong.
	The estimates were wrong.
	The projections were wrong.
	The pretext for this shutdown of the economy and quarantining of the Constitution Had no factual basis.
	If we look at chart number four from Ohio, we see a similar projection versus reality.
	And we see that in this sort of the chart here, it projected that first one was the red chart, which had all of these viruses going to be spread, and it's going to be 30, 40, 50,000 people.
	And then they said, OK, maybe we got there wrong.
	Oh, it'll be at least 17,000 people.
	No, instead, it's all the way down to around 7,000 people that even have the virus.
	So you can see the virus actual rate has been almost flat, while the projected rates were this endless exponential growth that has been completely unverified and unvalidated by public experience.
	If we look at chart number five, we see a similar disparity between the projections and reality.
	The projections were this endless exponential growth.
	We were going to have 40,000 people needing intensive care units by April the 7th in New York.
	Well, of course, that day came and went and didn't happen.
	So then they said, well, OK, OK, it'll be next week or two weeks later or next month later.
	And this time they said there'll be 40,000 intensive care units needed by April 14th.
	Nope.
	Instead, we have about 5,000.
	So they were wrong by a factor of about 8.
	So before they were wrong by a factor of about 10, now they're wrong by a factor of about 8.
	They continue to be wrong and wrong, way wrong.
	There has never been an overcapacity crisis in New York and its hospitals, as the governor himself, Governor Cuomo himself, acknowledged yesterday.
	And on that pretext they shut down churches, they shut down businesses, they deprived people of their political and religious expression, they deprived people of their ability for self-defense while releasing criminals from Rikers Island who then went and committed crimes, shock shock, while depriving people of their rights of privacy, illicitly surveilling and disclosing their medical information against their informed consent, and of course depriving their business without due process or just compensation.
	We see a similar chart when it deals with daily number of people admitted to New York City hospitals.
	Here again we see that this chart was supposed to go up and instead it was going to down where it's been going for days.
	We see something similar if we contrast the United States versus, say, Sweden.
	Or the United Kingdom versus Sweden.
	And the United Kingdom has done a shutdown.
	Did a shutdown on March the 23rd.
	At that time period, it was almost identical to Sweden in the number of deaths.
	But look what has happened since then.
	Sweden has not locked down at all.
	It has not engaged in mass social distancing at all.
	It has just used the same procedures and protocols to exercise reasonable health precautions, protect the vulnerable, do what the report and the Canadian doctor recommended, which is have close contact and monitoring of individuals you have reasonable suspicion, have the disease, or are particularly susceptible to getting the disease and suffering a debilitating or even death if they get it.
	Look for them.
	Watch out for them.
	Monitor them.
	If necessary, isolate them.
	But do not put mass house arrest on the public.
	That's what Sweden did.
	Sweden said, we're not going to do mass house arrest.
	The United Kingdom said, we are going to do mass house arrest.
	And let's look at what the chart shows since then.
	Since then, the death rate in the United Kingdom, and this is a death rate that is per million population.
	So it's not just looking at gross numbers.
	It's looking at a relevant, pertinent stat.
	And what we see is since the lockdown, the United Kingdom's death rate has been going up while Sweden's rate has been going down.
	Most significantly, if we look at the time period since April 6th, so remember that there's a lag time between death and infection.
	So when you get the infection it usually takes about five days according to the CDC and to other the Center for Disease Control in the United States as well as other surveys that have been done by governments around the world.
	The shortest time period they estimate between getting the infection and it resulting in death is an average of 21 days.
	Usually if you get infected you often don't know about it for four or five days.
	Then you start showing symptoms for another four or five days.
	When it gets debilitating, when it gets severe, is when you go to the hospital.
	So usually by day 10 to day 14 you're at the hospital.
	Another three to four days before you use an ICU unit.
	And then it's usually 21 days before you pass away.
	So if we look at that 21 day time period, that's just about happening here on April 9th and 10th is when we're starting to enter that time frame.
	And look at what's happening.
	The UK is not seeing a dramatic decline in the death rate, whereas Sweden is.
	So the lockdown gave no credit for the UK is getting no benefit from it compared to Sweden, which is not locking down at all.
	In fact, we see similar numbers just in case you think it's merely the death rate.
	We see in terms of the number of overall cases, we see a similar demographic.
	We see a similar result.
	That since the shutdown has taken place and we're now approaching that 21 day time period where it should show up and in the number of cases that would show up sooner.
	In terms of infections and again what we're seeing is that Sweden is going down while the UK is actually higher than Sweden even though the UK and Sweden were almost even at the time originally that the lockdown began.
	In fact, when we look at Swedish data, if we look at chart number nine, we'll see that in fact overall mortality rates in Sweden, and this is in the languages in Swedish on the chart, we see that for 2020, the data so far is that their mortality rate overall in Sweden is About the same it's been for every year during the same time period from March 1st to April 3rd.
	So there's been no great jump in the mortality rate.
	Indeed, there's a chart they're not showing you across the country.
	While they want to put out big numbers of how many people have the virus, how many people may have by gross numbers of deaths rather than looking at death rate, mortality rate, growth rate.
	Here's the chart that goes from March 4th to April 12th, which shows the United States COVID-19 Oh, day over day percent change in total deaths.
	And what the models projected was that this number was going to go like that.
	It's going to take this exponential rise that way.
	In the beginning, they had some evidence of that.
	Between up until up until the shutdown started really happening in March 20th to 23rd.
	But in fact, since March 23rd, the death rate has been the rise in the day to day percent change in death rate has been going down.
	It was originally looking at 33% up to 40% a day at the time of the shutdowns.
	But in fact, and we'll get into why the shutdowns could not impact this rate during this 21-day time period, in the 21-day time period that the shutdown could have had no impact on the death rate, the mortality rate, it's been going down in the exact same way.
	It started out in the 30s, then down to the 20s, then down to the teens, and now it's been in the single digits for days.
	This is exactly what happened in Wuhan that the Israeli Nobel laureate pointed out, and thus he was able to predict far more accurately than any model why the death rate was going to decline.
	Same thing happened in Iran, same thing is now happening in Sweden, and same thing is happening in Singapore, same thing is happening in South Korea, same thing happening in Japan to a large degree.
	That whenever they have this high death rate, within the first three weeks it's sort of, the virus is vicious.
	Then it starts to decline and drop off, it goes from Growing at a third a day, to growing at 25%, to 20, to 15, to 12, 7, to 5.
	And so anybody following that pattern could recognize that mitigation efforts like severe shutdowns were having no effect or impact on this path of the virus.
	It found the vulnerable and susceptible, and then when it ran out of vulnerable and susceptible people to get to, it started to see precipitous declines in the way almost every virus in the last century has experienced.
	And that's why that's the chart they're not showing you.
	The press is not showing you.
	The politicians who want to seize power are not showing you.
	And let's remember in this context, if we look at chart number one, when states actually closed, because here and there's like two numbers, two dates that matter.
	The date that they shut down each state issued a stay at home order.
	And then the 21 days after that to measure the effectiveness.
	So we'll be able to measure the mortality rate decline once 21 days has passed from the date of the shutdown.
	That has already happened in parts of the United States, hasn't happened yet in other parts of the United States.
	Now we can more quickly measure things like decline in ICU units, decline in hospitalizations, decline in overall cases given the test rate.
	Because those things happen sooner from the time period of shutdown, and compare places that did shut down versus didn't shut down, and also compare when they shut down.
	So, for example, we see in cases like New York and New Jersey shut down earlier, substantially earlier, than Florida or Texas, and yet Florida and Texas are seeing even greater declination rates and the growth rates of this disease than New York and New Jersey.
	This is strong evidence that, in fact, there is no causative relationship between the shutdown and reducing the infection rate, reducing the illness rate, reducing the disease rate, reducing the hospitalization rate, reducing the ICU rate, or reducing the mortality rate.
	The evidence so far is that many of the states, many states that have not shut down, have seen the same pattern as states that have shut down.
	You'll see a lot of focus on South Dakota because it's the one state that's had a small outbreak that did not shut down.
	You won't be hearing, however, about Arkansas or Iowa or Nebraska or North Dakota or Utah or Wyoming.
	Why?
	Because those states that also did not shut down are seeing some of the lowest growth rates of the disease.
	So just as Florida and Texas doing it at a different time period, Tennessee doing it at a later time period, and yet seeing better results than the states that acted earlier, is a clear evidence that in fact there's no real causative relationship between a complete shutdown and reducing the spread of this disease, particularly the deathly impacts and effects of its disease.
	What we're seeing in New York, what we're seeing in other places around the world, what we're seeing in Sweden versus the United States, is all further evidence of this.
	In fact, if we look at chart number 11 from Sweden that's measuring ICU units, measuring hospitalization, measuring mortality, all of the charts sort of went up, peaked, and since the effect of comparing the shutdown versus Sweden not shutting down, Sweden is seeing greater declines in the hospitalization rate, illness rate, death rate, mortality rate, ICU rate, Then the countries in Europe that did shut down for the same time period.
	Now, by the way, there's a reason why they're banning films like Hoax.
	It's because there is a long history.
	Of the politicians and the political class getting it wrong when it comes to issues like this.
	For example, consider this from graph number 12, this article from the Guardian, headline.
	And this is from years past.
	Bird flu pandemic could kill 150 million.
	Turned out to be way wrong by about a factor of 10.
	Last month, Neil Ferguson, a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, if he sounds familiar, it's because he was the first one to promote the panic in response to this pandemic.
	Told Guardian Unlimited that up to 200 million could be killed.
	And he was talking about, he said, it's going to be like the Spanish flu.
	By the way, he was talking about a different virus than this one.
	Meanwhile, there's been a German study and survey to look at what in fact is effective and what isn't effective.
	And here was the conclusion of the Professor Streik in looking at his study.
	What was his conclusion?
	Quote, there is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping.
	Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together, Over a longer period of time.
	In other words, shutdown policies are some of the highest risk policies you could engage in because you require people be in close continuous contact in confined quarters.
	And according to at least this study, that's what will spread the disease quickest and easiest.
	Whereas shopping and being out in public and being out in open air and participating in the economy, participating in civil society, participating in public exercise and enjoying the aesthetics and beauty of your natural world, those things are incredibly unlikely to lead to the spread of the disease.
	If we look at chart number 15, this is useful because what it detects and what it follows and monitors is the degree to which different people started engaging in social distancing, independent of shutdowns, and what you find when you compare these charts to the charts of the growth rate in the infection, the growth rate in the transmission of the disease, the growth rate in terms of mortality or disabling illness or ICU units or hospitalization,
	Is that, in fact, there's no correlation between the degree to which they were engaged in social distancing and the degree to which the infection has spread in those communities or countries.
	Meanwhile, of course, we have people like Mr. Kaskari, who's saying the United States may have to face 18 months of rolling shutdowns.
	This is what the Obama-connected and media-connected people want to force upon Americans.
	And they want to do so while the economy suffers severe Potential problems.
	For example, if you look at chart 17 you see the comparison of total public debt to the gross domestic product and you can see since 2009 that chart has got out of whack.
	With the debt going up and up and up and up, more compared to gross domestic product.
	And what's the effect of that?
	The effect is that we are at high risk and the economy is in a big gamble.
	But if you look at chart number 18, you can see everybody's losing their job except, oh, people in government.
	The only place that's having job growth is government.
	So when we come back in the bottom half of the hour, we'll take your calls.
	Whether this is a reasonable set of policies given the circumstances we currently face.
	Whether the suspension of our constitutional liberties, the shutdown of the public economy for dubious science and questionable histories is the way we should approach this moving forward.
	So come back with your questions, and we'll try to answer them as you, the jury, get to have more voice than you've had a voice in the government so far.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're going to be taking your calls.
	You can call in at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	And we appreciate you calling in as part of the jury in this part of the process to listen to you, to hear from you in ways that unfortunately our politicians have not.
	But some of the things that the politicians should be paying attention to is some of the volatility in our financial markets and the risk in the housing markets from this continued shutdown.
	Let's just look at chart number 19.
	And what that chart details is the volatility in the markets that are often a sign of impending doom in certain circumstances.
	To give you some idea for that, the Dow cumulative absolute percentage changed by month If we go back since the early 1900s, we find that it got to close to 100% absolute percent change in October of 1929, which was the beginning of the collapse of that part of the stock market and then the economy.
	The next time it happened was October of 1987, which was able to be contained, but did severe damage nonetheless.
	The next time was October 2008 in the financial crisis that gave us about a decade-long recession.
	But worse than all three was what happened in March of 2020.
	Similarly, if we look at chart number 20, we can look at the housing index, and what it shows is housing prices over time.
	And there's a red line that indicates the housing index in terms of nominal price, and the blue line is the real value.
	And what we'll see is that the blue line was sort of mostly flat through a long time period.
	Then up to 2006, it hit a peak, which led to the bust.
	It showed it was above value.
	All the way down to 2011.
	Well now where are we?
	We're about exactly the same place we were in 2006 when the housing markets collapsed.
	So our housing market sits at a teetering edge.
	Our financial markets sit at a teetering edge.
	This doesn't even get into pensions and corporate buybacks and municipal bonds and U.S.
	government debt.
	But it shows the kind of economic risk that we're exposed to at this precise moment.
	And what's the solution by people like the Bill Gates's of the world?
	Well, let's look at image number 23.
	Reuters did a fact check and said, oh no, this quantum tattoo that the Gates Foundation developed to stick a vaccine in your body and to track and trace you.
	Don't worry, that's not a chip.
	It's really a quantum tattoo.
	Well, look at that image.
	Does that look like just a tattoo to you?
	Or does that look like someone's trying to chip you?
	Maybe in a way that's not as severe within your skin.
	But this Quantum Dot Tattoo, which was developed by the Gates Foundation, supported by it in many respects, and is one of the recommended solutions that Bill Gates referenced implicitly when talking about digital certificates and vaccines before people are allowed to re-participate in public society or public economy in a Reddit discussion earlier this year.
	That's what that looks like.
	That's their solution.
	By contrast, let's look at what the constitutional solution is.
	This is sort of a, this is from a summary, a legal summary, in chart 21, that's a quote from a leading legal treaties about what our rights are.
	And it is a simple summation.
	Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion.
	The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling government interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
	A burden shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
	That's worth repeating.
	The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, the same is true of political beliefs, may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest and in infringing that specific act or refusal to act.
	And it has clear and convincing evidence that it has used the least restrictive means necessary to further that interest.
	Ask yourself whether what's happened comes anywhere close to that standard that the Constitution compels before the government can burden your First, Second, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights.
	If we look at chart number 22, we have a good summation of what's happened in the country today in a relatively recently cartoon, where the Statue of Liberty is putting her hands over her face, and the guy's explaining, don't worry, but we got scared.
	That's what's supposed to happen.
	We got scared, so let's just sacrifice our constitutional liberties and freedom.
	In fact, you have prominent blue check mark folks on Twitter and social media saying that the Constitution can't compare to public health.
	Well, why do you think that the founders of this country, who were much more intimately aware with plagues and viruses and contagions, did not include any exception for such public health or emergency in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, if they thought that?
	Well, at the same time, as our economy collapses, our constitutional rights are suspended, and the only recommended remedy is mass shutdown, mass house arrest, and putting a needle in your arm, or a chip in your finger, or a quantum tattoo, as Bill Gates would call it.
	What else is happening is that we are just weeks away, according to Congressman Massey, from food shortages.
	According to Congressman Massey, livestock could end up being euthanized.
	Vegetables and fruit left to rot in the field.
	Just as we've already seen start to happen in Florida.
	Just as we've seen milk being poured out.
	And what's part of the problem?
	Processing plants are shutting down.
	And because the key parts of the food supply chain are shutting down, then what's going to happen is that's going to have ramifications all the way back up the food chain to where we may have substantial food shortages and then food price inflation coming very soon.
	At the same time, we have more and more people second-guessing the Fed's strategy, as this article talks about why printing money is not the solution to failing economies.
	Now, we have other reasons to believe that.
	Those would include Weimar Germany in the 1930s, that would include Hungary in 1946, that would include Argentina in the 1990s, that would include Zimbabwe in the mid-2000s, and that would include Venezuela recently.
	But as this article goes into detail, the Fed is poised to print another $2.3 trillion that they are adding to the public economy.
	And what are they purchasing with this?
	They're going to spend at least $500 billion in buying up loans to municipal governments through by-purchase of municipal bonds.
	They're taking on more and more riskier debts.
	Now, to give you an idea, what does that mean?
	If the Fed buys up municipal bonds, they could own your local town.
	Because they would own the debt on that town.
	And if they own the debt on that town, they own that town.
	They could dictate its policies.
	This is how the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, operates around the world.
	They could control your local government, your city government, your town government, your state government in ways that to some degree it already has disproportionate control over the federal government.
	And in fact the Fed is also looking at buying up junk bonds of corporations.
	What does that mean?
	They could end up owning large parts of equities of corporate America.
	Not only that, they're looking at buying mortgage-backed securities.
	What is that?
	That's where your mortgage has been packaged together and sold to some bank on Wall Street.
	What does that mean they could do?
	It means they could own your mortgage.
	So they could own your home, they could own your town, they could own your city, they could own your state, and they could own the corporation that employs you or the corporation that provides services to you.
	Is there any public debate or dialogue or discussion as to how this is happening or why this is happening or whether it's a good thing that it's happening?
	And how are they doing it?
	They're just printing money, because our U.S.
	government has given an exclusive monopoly to printing Federal Reserve notes as our only form of permitted exchange, our currency, in the world today.
	And through that, they're using that power to grab power around the world, and in particular in the United States.
	What does that lead to risk of, as this article goes into detail about?
	Massive debasement of the currency is a substantial risk for the domestic population.
	Hyperinflation of things that you really enjoy is a substantial risk for the local population.
	Indeed, as another article details, markets are rising on another Faustian bargain.
	And as one person pointed out, if you thought people were politically upset and agitated with Occupy Wall Street and other related movements at bailing out people that made $50 million a year, what happens when people figure out we're bailing out people that make $500 million a year?
	They show massive volatility.
	The charts show that we're experiencing more volatility than happened in 2008 during the financial crisis.
	The what they call the VIX index, which is a volatility index, is neatly retracing moves that happened after the Lehman bankruptcy in 2008 that led to the credit crisis and financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.
	The Federal Reserve's reaction is to go from mortal hazard to moral hazard by buying up high yield bonds and municipal debt and buying up what they called stocks of zombie companies.
	What are those?
	Those are companies, we not only have cannibalistic rats happening in the streets of New York City and other places because they have no food to chomp on so they're now devouring each other, we also have zombie companies like a walking dead reality in the economic world.
	These are companies whose total tangible assets are not enough to repay all their debt.
	And the only way these zombie companies can keep walking around is with rock bottom interest rates, which interest rates are usually the means by which you could control the risk of inflation.
	So we're pumping tons of cash and throwing it out into the economy, letting the Fed be the barometer and the monopolizer of a lot of those assets and interest.
	And at the same time, we can't increase the interest rates to either increase savings or to reduce the inflationary exposure because we got all these zombie companies run around that have no other risk, no other ability to operate in any other manner.
	That is why eight doctors got together, a bunch of doctors got together and listed eight reasons to end the lockdowns now.
	Now what's ironic is this article was published on Medium initially and originally, but like the film Hoaxed, it was immediately banned, suppressed, and censored from public view, public review, or public disclosure.
	And what did the article point out?
	It just pointed out common sense.
	It pointed out that if there ever was an attempt needed to flatten the curve, the curve has already been flattened in terms of the mortality rate, the infection rate, the illness rate, the hospitalization rate, and the ICU rate.
	They point out that economic collapse and unemployment leads to its own public health crisis.
	They note that the health care system has not reached any degree of overcapacity anywhere in the country.
	In fact, it's undercapacity at most parts of the country as hospitals are furloughing staff, nurses and medical personnel.
	It goes into about how suicide is a substantial risk when you combine economic shutdown with social isolation.
	That this has been commonly known as one of the consequences to this mechanism or method of remedy to a public health crisis.
	That various forms of protective equipment are fully available to the degree necessary.
	That kids are at no mortality risk or danger and their lives, futures, and freedoms should not be stripped from them in exchange for this.
	And that's what's leading to the lawsuits and legal action being brought.
	Here's just one of the quotes from the court case brought in Pennsylvania.
	Noted that the orders of the Pennsylvania governor constitute a regulatory taking implemented for a recognized public purpose and therefore the failure to pay just compensation contravenes the takings clause of the 5th and 14th amendments.
	The 14th amendment applies the rest of the Constitution to the states in particular context.
	Doesn't always apply to every single aspect but applies to many of the core constitutional rights and liberties that are present.
	And as the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, including most recently in 2015, the government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as it when it takes your home or any other property, including your business.
	That is why lawsuits are spreading across the country to deal with this.
	So now we want to hear from you.
	So you, the jury, as you get a chance to have your question, if you could have it within about a minute, that makes it most effective for us and we appreciate that.
	So first, let's go to Nima in California.
	Hi.
	Hey, how are you?
	Good.
	Hey, I'm calling from California and I have a PhD in immunology and microbiology, including an MBA in finance.
	So I understand the financial aspects as well as the science aspects of this mess of COVID-19.
	Nobody has brought this up.
	I think one or two researchers might have brought this up.
	They have not done something called Koch's postulates on this virus, which essentially shows causation between the virus and the disease.
	They have not done that at all, and I think I know why they haven't done it, because then they'd be exposed that this thing is just a regular flu and nothing else.
	It's a real fraud that has been perpetrated on the American public.
	And I'm not going to sit there and try to explain Koch's postulates, but you can probably look it up.
	It's a gold standard of immunology, virology, bacteriology, microbiology.
	You have to prove that A particular organism is causing the symptoms and disease de facto.
	And they have not done that with this.
	They did it with SARS in 2003, but they have not done it with COVID.
	And so this whole theory of that COVID doing this and doing that is just complete nonsense.
	Meanwhile, you know, our economy is in complete freefall, which is a disaster.
	And I think I'll just leave it at that.
	I think you've explained everything else.
	But the Koch postulates have not been done, and nobody is bringing this up.
	You know, Fauci is not bringing it up.
	Bill Gates is not bringing it up.
	And they're doing this deliberately, just hoodwink and gaslight everybody.
	So I think, you know, people need to know about this.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Thanks for that comment.
	There's no doubt about it.
	I did actually read that in someone who was commenting, not from the scientific community, but about this in fact going on.
	That there has been no meaningful effort to date to first make sure we know exactly what this virus is.
	Secondly, the degree to which this virus is causing any of the ailments or illnesses that are being reported in hospitals.
	Third, we know that the hospitals and medical facilities are being incentivized to misrepresent or to exaggerate the scope to which any illness that they treat, any death that occurs, they need to label as COVID-19 in order to get the best possible financial reimbursement from the government.
	So they're under no incentive or motivation to do an accurate causative relationship test.
	And you're right that the methods and mechanisms that the science of virology has always followed before making judgments about what is the nature of this infection?
	What is causing this particular?
	Does it cause particular disease?
	What disease does it cause?
	How does it cause that disease?
	What is its rate of contagion?
	What is its rate of infection?
	Which populations are vulnerable?
	What treatments might be available?
	What public policies should be utilized?
	All of those have been scrapped or short circuited.
	In exchange for this pandemic panic, Fauci himself, back in February, was reporting in a journal article that got printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical publications in the world, that got published in March.
	And he wrote it just in late February that this virus may be simply another, as you point out, another flu.
	It may have severe flu-like symptoms.
	It may have severe flu-like consequences.
	He only reversed himself after Bill Gates put his finger on the lever of political power with the billions of dollars he's flooded into the public health arena, both within the United States and internationally, to such a degree that publications like Politico The EU reported that other public officials were disturbed by the degree of Bill Gates near monopoly on political influence, contaminating through donor dollars the public health policies that are being recommended right now in the Western world.
	And you're right, basic scientific methods have not been followed.
	And I guarantee you, mayors and governors have no clue What in fact is present here scientifically.
	If they sat and were cross-examined and said, what is your empirical evidentiary basis for saying that this virus or infection can cause this particular disease, can cause this transmission rate, causes this degree of risk, to where driving in your car by yourself is somehow an imminent threat and reasonable suspicion that you have a transmittable disease or will have it.
	None of them could answer that question competently or capably.
	It shows the degree to which our public health systems can be monopolized, can be infected by big dollars from big donors, by people who are not democratically elected for any position of power in this country, and have now asserted their control, corrupting the public health process in the same way our universities have corrosively corrupted our academia,
	By deterring and discouraging dissident and independent and iconoclastic thought that has led to a suppression of inventiveness across the entire Western world.
	We mean people have talked about curing cancer 50 years ago, but we quit curing things about a half century ago in this country and in the Western world, in large part because our universities, our academies, our government bureaucracies have corrosively corrupted those institutions to suppress independent thought.
	To only encourage conformist thought and to allow people like big dollar billionaires like Bill Gates with their overpopulation obsessions like something out of the film Inferno to infect our public health policy decision-making to such a degree that they can threaten the elected President of the United States that if he doesn't do what they say, they'll accuse him of murdering millions of people.
	So, thank you very much for your question, Nima.
	And in fact, that brings up a video from President Trump having to respond to the false accusations and allegations today in the White House.
	Let's take a look at video clip number 10.
	Are you doing this voluntarily?
	No, I'm doing it.
	Everything I do is voluntarily, please.
	Don't even imply that.
	I saved tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives by putting it- The argument is that you bought yourself some time and you didn't use it to prepare hospitals, you didn't use it to ramp up testing.
	You're so disgraceful.
	It's so disgraceful the way you say that.
	Let me just- Listen, I just went over it.
	I just went over it.
	Nobody thought we should do it, and when I did it- You know what we did?
	You know what we did?
	What do you do?
	What do you do when you have no case in the whole United States when you... Excuse me.
	You reported it.
	Zero cases, zero deaths on January 17th.
	January.
	I said in January.
	On January 30th.
	A lot.
	A lot.
	And in fact, we'll give you a list what we did.
	In fact, part of it was up there.
	We did a lot.
	Look, look.
	You know you're a fake.
	You know that your whole network, the way you cover it, is fake.
	And most of you, and not all of you, but the people are wise to you.
	That's why you have a lower approval rating than you've ever had before, times probably three.
	And when you ask me that question, let me ask you this.
	Why didn't Biden, why didn't, why did Biden apologize?
	Why did he write a letter of apology?
	No, that's very important.
	Why did the Democrats think that I acted too quickly?
	You know why?
	Because they really thought that I acted too quickly.
	We have done a great job.
	Now I could have, I could have kept it open and I could have done what some countries are doing.
	They're getting Beat up pretty badly.
	I could have kept it open.
	I thought of keeping it open because nobody's ever heard of closing down a country, let alone the United States of America.
	But if I would have done that, we would have had hundreds of thousands of people that would right now be dead.
	We've done this right.
	And we really, we really have done this right.
	The problem is the press doesn't cover it the way it should be.
	And that's where we are today, where the president has to defend himself against widespread accusations because they want him to do even more.
	They want governors and mayors and other people to go even further than they already have.
	That is the precarious precipice of our constitutional republic that we sit on today.
	And that is why more and more lawsuits are taking place across the country, why they're needed and why they're necessary.
	The NRA has had to file suit in California and Tennessee to preserve people's Second Amendment rights of self-defense.
	People have brought suits in Kentucky simply to be able to attend church in their own vehicles.
	In Massachusetts, cannabis dispensaries are because a lot of people rely upon various forms of cannabis for a wide range of medical purposes, and it's permitted in different parts of the world and in the U.S.
	for medical purposes, including cancer treatment, pain, social anxiety.
	Well, they're having to sue in order to be able to make sure they can provide those medical benefits to their customers and clients because a governor just by whim decides what's essential and not essential.
	In Oklahoma, The only place that have actually succeeded so far, the only place the courts have recognized respected rights on a consistent, continuous level?
	Abortion providers.
	Well, if abortion is a necessary medical service, an essential service, why isn't going to church an essential First Amendment service?
	Why isn't public protest an essential activity?
	Why isn't being able to have a gun for self-defense an essential activity?
	The President has acknowledged that it is.
	In Pennsylvania, of course, as we talked about, they're bringing suit in a wide range of contexts.
	People are bringing suits for environmental issues, for economic issues, for election issues, for business-related issues all across the country.
	In fact, as I counted so far, there's at least 20 such suits pending around the globe.
	So that's the world in which we reside today, where flags are being banned, where films are being banned, where the ability to go to church, the ability to leave your home, the ability to drive, the ability to walk in the park, the ability to play with your kids, all under threat of arrest in different parts of America.
	That is not the definition of constitutional liberty that our forefathers gave us as our inheritance.
	And in order to protect that inheritance, we must continue to protect our core rights.
	So do things like share the links to this video.
	Share information.
	Get active.

▲