All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes
01:47:00
20200421_Tue_Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm pretty sure he's my man.
Welcome to another edition of American Countdown.
Tonight we're going to discuss resolve.
That this shutdown, especially as it continues, is not constitutional.
I'll be explaining why I have brought suit against the governor of Michigan.
We'll be going through that suit.
And going through the reasons for it, the basis of it, and why I believe it should prevail.
Why we're going to be using that suit as a model to bring legal actions against any politician who continues this shutdown while it is clear that there is no constitutional basis for it, creating a constitutional crisis of unparalleled and unprecedented kind in our country.
We're going to be looking at the governors of Minnesota, the governors of not only the governor of Michigan and Minnesota, but also of New Jersey, of Maryland, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, California, Nevada.
We're going to be looking at mayors and other city and county officials across the nation from Chattanooga to Fort Worth and looking at who needs to have legal action brought against them to prevent this from continuing and more importantly, to preclude it from ever reoccurring again.
Indeed, the risk that are present when we start claiming an emergency power exception to the Constitution and to our democracy goes all the way back to Weimar Germany.
When the president started using that power as his excuse and pretext to take extraordinary action, it was the beginning down a slippery slope.
Until we had Nazi power in Germany a few years later, which led to the horrors of Nazi Germany and of course the horrors of World War II.
So that is why the past, as Shakespeare said, is often prologue.
And if we're going to preclude that from reoccurring and repeating, Then we must take action now, and that action is partially an action rooted in public protest and public statements, but also necessitates legal action, where the big question will be whether the courts will repeat the mistakes of the decisions like Korematsu in the 1940s, the last time we came close to anything like what we're seeing today.
And even that was done on a much smaller scale to what we're witnessing in America today.
Whether the courts will properly reject the infamy that the Korematsu decision lives in, as a unanimous Supreme Court just a few years ago said in Trump v. Hawaii, that such powers cannot be granted to any politician, even under the pretext of war, crisis or emergency, that violates such core constitutional rights and could not be considered narrowly tailored.
So let's look at what the constitutional analysis is.
From a legal perspective, before a politician can in any way infringe upon, burden, limit, restrict a core constitutional right, and we'll talk about what some of those core constitutional rights are that are at issue here.
Then the court must find that two things.
First, that the politician acted in a compelling public interest.
That there was a compelling public interest that justified what the politician did.
And secondly, that what the politician did was narrowly tailored to that compelling public interest.
As Will Chamberlain, who had a debate with us I think about a couple of weeks ago, admitted and acknowledged indeed that few of these shutdowns could meet that constitutional standard.
So let us look at what that standard would mean in this context.
In this context, the core rights being implicated, the core rights being suppressed, the core rights being restricted under the Constitution include the right of free religious expression protected under the First Amendment, The right of public peaceable assembly, also protected under the First Amendment.
The right of free speech and free press, also protected under the First Amendment.
And the right to petition one's government for redress of grievances, also protected under the First Amendment.
All of those rights are being restricted by these universal shutdown orders that do not restrict themselves and do not exempt essential activities like the expression of constitutional liberties.
Now, some governors have done so in places like Tennessee and Texas.
Some governors are reopening their states as quickly as they can, such as Alabama, such as Georgia, such as Texas, such as apparently Tennessee intends to.
But we're seeing places like Michigan, places like Maryland, places like Minnesota, places like New Hampshire, places like New Jersey, places like Connecticut, places like California, not take the remedial action that is necessary and that is called for.
Instead, they're doubling down, even as their cities, counties, and states are experiencing even less of a problem than the models projected or predicted or the politicians themselves used as the predicate for their actions.
So that is why we are looking at and have taken and will continue to take legal action across the country.
Because if you look at the data and the information, they cannot show that there is either a compelling public interest that necessitates their actions, nor can they show more importantly that these actions that they've taken are narrowly tailored.
So there's two components that are required.
One is that the action be a narrowly tailored action to a compelling public interest to meet that public interest.
Also that it be non-discriminatory in how it is used and applied.
So you can't have one set of rules for say mosques and a different set of rules for say churches.
You can't have one set of rules for liquor stores and lottery tickets and a different standard for religious and political expression or the purchase of a gun for your self-defense.
Also protected under the Second Amendment.
The right to privacy is a core right protected under the Fourth Amendment.
The right for freedom of movement against arrest without probable cause of a crime or clear and convincing evidence of one being an imminent risk to someone else under either mental health or the quarantine law.
Under the Fourth Amendment is also a core right.
The right to have just compensation for the taking of any property of yours is a core constitutional right protected under the Fifth Amendment.
The right to your profession, vocation or occupation, the pursuit of happiness in the old Declaration of Independence terms.
That right is protected from any violation against due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
And all of this is applied to the states, to the cities, to the counties, deliberately and directly by the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which includes those other rights as part of the due process and equal protection that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply.
Indeed, the solution to the Civil War was the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to not only forever prohibit slavery, but prohibit it in any form or fashion.
Prohibit any city, county, or state politician from violating the core constitutional rights and liberties of ordinary everyday Americans.
That's why they also passed statutes known as the Civil Rights Laws.
42 U.S.C.
1983.
There's also ones like 1981, 1988, that are all codified within that same title.
And those laws dating back to the 1870s and 1880s that have been amended through the years are all intended to make sure that your rights are protected and preserved against the intrusion or invasion of those rights by wayward politicians and rogue politicians seeking power and seeking it under the pretext of trying to protect your public health when the empirical review and evidentiary basis is simply not there.
So let's go back.
What is the compelling public interest that these politicians are claiming?
They're claiming as their as their public compelling public interest is protecting people's physical lives from death or such severe disease to be debilitating and disabling and requiring hospitalization and ventilator use.
So that's their compelling public interest.
So in order to assess that, we need to know to what degree is this virus, is this pandemic, does it pose, what kind of risk does it pose, how does it pose that risk, and for that we need to know facts like the rate of contagion, the means of contagion, and the means of the prevention of the consequences of contagion, and then the means of prevention of the contagion.
We also need to look at those means and measure those means against the risks that those means themselves create.
So, for example, in this context, what we have is a particular remedy may be very effective for preventing the spread of the disease, but may create or cause more problems, more harm than the prevention mechanism will actually provide for.
The old statement that the cure is worse than the disease.
Well, that's what narrowly tailored under the strict scrutiny analysis under the Constitution is meant to address.
In order for something to be narrowly tailored and non-discriminatory in its effect on religious and political freedom and expression, it needs to be something that there no other alternative could suffice.
And it needs to be something that does not create worse consequences for the public interest at stake than it does otherwise.
So for example if the allegation is hey you know what I as a politician need to have this particular restriction in place because it will prevent one-tenth of one percent of the people from getting the disease and dying from the disease.
But it will actually kill 10 times that many in economic depression and suicide rates and social isolation and public health and mental stress than it has not at all achieved.
It's not a narrowly tailored remedy to meet the compelling public interest of reducing the overall mortality rate.
Because that's the interest.
It's not the interest of let's just make sure we save lives from the virus.
It's let's make sure we save lives, period.
And that the quantity of life has to take into consideration as well the quality of life.
That means the protection of our civil liberties.
That means the protection of our free economy.
For many people, the only reason to live is a purpose to live.
That just physical survival is not enough for most people.
Most people prefer to risk the quantity of life to improve their quality of life.
We make these decisions every day in America.
It's why we allow people to drive automobiles even though we know that doing so, the private ownership of automobiles is likely to lead to 30,000 to 40,000 excess deaths every single year.
We do so because we choose our freedom over living in an indentured servitude state to the state.
We choose in essence 78 years, 77 years of American freedom over 78 years of Cuban lifestyle.
So that is who we are.
So we have to measure all of those factors and a politician is compelled to measure those factors when explaining why the compelling public interest justifies their action and why it is that the particular action they have taken is narrowly tailored to that particular remedy.
So let's look at what the evidence actually shows.
The rate of contagion is in fact something that was not well known when the politicians took the action that they took.
I suspect when we get into these lawsuits, we will discover that these mayors, these governors, these various city, county, and state officials did not even do a serious scientific review of the relevant and pertinent medical literature.
What is the evidence for that?
Well, for example, we've never done mass house arrest in the history of the Western world to address a virus.
This is completely novel.
We've never done this.
We've never done mass shutdowns.
So you start with the fact that it's ahistorical.
This remedy does not have a historical basis of success.
Indeed, the few bases of success in dealing with the Spanish flu in 1918, 1919 and 1920 In the United States was that those cities that acted quickly and what did they do?
They just imposed social distancing guidelines that were universally applied.
So what this said was, okay, you can operate your business, you can operate your church, you can operate anything as long as you can operate within these social distancing guidelines.
Secondly, they took special protections for things that were publicly permitted activity and limited public permits for things like mass gatherings and parades.
That's within their political authority to do.
That's mass gatherings of a certain size and scale, not like 5 people or 10 people like some of the restrictions are being in place, but more like 50 people, 100 people, 200 people.
So mass gatherings were precluded for public health purposes.
But you could still peaceably assemble as long as you complied with social distancing standards.
You could still operate your business.
In fact, unemployment went down during the Spanish flu, not up, because that's how they operated.
Factories still continue to operate full-scale.
Businesses continue to operate full-scale.
Political protests continue to operate full-scale.
Religious activities were limited in how they could do their church services, but they were not precluded from doing public church services.
As we've had mayors and governors try to prohibit and preclude things like drive-in church services.
I brought suit in Chattanooga, led the mayor to change his position overnight, so that now drive-in church services are permitted.
There's ways in which people can engage in publicly protected, constitutionally protected activity without creating any risk under social distancing guidelines applied universally.
That has not happened here.
Everything about this, the first piece of evidence against what the governors did, is that it is completely ahistorical.
It has no historical precedent.
It has no historical basis.
It has no evidentiary, empirical-based information or foundation in history.
In fact, it's counter-history.
It's contrary to history.
So that's problem number one, is that we've never taken this remedy to any form of plague, to any form of pandemic, to any form of influenza before.
And in fact, we've taken different methods that were far less restrictive.
They're almost completely protective of constitutional activity.
And we achieved the same reduction, the so-called flatten the curve that was the purported objective of these politicians.
We have completely obtained that without doing any of these remedies in past years, in past times.
And that was during a time period which we had less effective methods as we do today that can be less restrictive than the ones that have been imposed are.
So that's the first piece of evidence, but we can go further.
When you looked at the data and the information, as was done by a Nobel laureate in Israel, who was able to accurately, unlike the modelers from Imperial College, unlike the modelers from Bill Gates-backed University of Washington and Professor Murray, unlike the models being propounded to the politicians and propounded by the politicians here in the United States, Unlike those models, his models were accurately predictive of what was going to happen in China, all the way back in Wuhan, all the way back in January and February.
He was able to accurately forecast, and much more closely to accurately forecasting, what was going to happen here in the United States.
What the rate of contagion showed Was that this was a very voracious virus at the beginning, and then like the bell curve of most viruses, ran into a hard wall of people who would not become symptomatically sick from the virus, and then it would dramatically decline in its effectiveness over time.
And this was happening in country after country, region after region, location after location, no matter what methods or mitigation techniques were utilized by that country or nation.
So the rate of contagion was information they did not have adequate or accurate information that could justify or warrant the extreme mechanisms that they chose.
Secondly, in terms of looking at the means of contagion, the politicians have simply ignored that.
Because date after date after date has come out that like most influenzas, this is a virus that spreads amongst close continuous contact in confined quarters over a substantial time period.
So for example, unless someone is with, even people who are in a restaurant, recycling air in a close continuous contact, confined quarter situation, most of the people there never got the virus, even though that virus was present in the restaurant, in the air, being recycled constantly and continuously for over an hour and a half.
Most of the people never got the virus.
Similarly to the Diamond Princess.
Here we had a perfect example, a perfect sort of Petri dish to measure the effectiveness and the means of contagion of this virus.
And what did we find?
83% of the people, even though they were on there for three weeks with recycled contaminated air, eating food from contaminated diseased chefs, sleeping in cabins that were cleaned by infected cleaners, and present on a ship with many other people who had it, Over 80% of the people on that ship spending three weeks in that contaminated ship with that contaminated air and the contaminated food and the contaminated sheets and the rest.
Over 80% never got the virus or showed any symptoms from it.
And so that told us that the means of contagion here, knowing it was the rate of contagion, not the kind of endless exponential growth being projected by the models, there was simply no empirical evidence for that either in history of these kinds of viruses or in the known data of this virus once you studied it with greater detail, there was simply no evidence that the means of the contagion could go past a traditional influenza-type virus.
And what that required on average was about being in the presence of someone with the virus for 15 minutes or longer, within six feet, with no protective measurements like masks or anything else, and you were having recycled air in the presence of that individual, and that was what and you were having recycled air in the presence of that individual, and that was what Even then, not much more than a 20%, 25% risk on average.
That you would get the virus, but that was the only risk that you would get the virus.
So once we know what the means of contagion are...
And the rate of contagion, then we can have some sense and then we have to look at the consequences of contagion.
So for example, if the consequence of contagion for most people is simply that they never even know that they had it.
They're truly asymptomatic.
Sometimes there's confusion out there about being pre-symptomatic versus asymptomatic.
Pre-symptomatic is someone who is going to show symptoms but hasn't shown the full scope and scale of those symptoms.
As opposed to people who are asymptomatic who simply never show the signs of those symptoms.
That's very important in understanding the rate of contagion.
The consequences of contagion can have a correlation with the rate of contagion because asymptomatic people tend not to spread symptomatic viruses to other people.
It just doesn't tend to happen historically.
In fact, Fauci himself acknowledged and admitted this.
This is what almost all the medical literature shows.
Once again, there's almost no evidence, based on their course of conduct, based on their published statements, based on what they've released to the city, the county, and the state that they govern, that these politicians imposing shutdowns have done any meaningful empirical review, evidentiary review, scientific review of the available accessible medical literature.
It appears to have been a politically motivated course of conduct, using the virus as a pretext to see how much power they can grab and seize over the American public.
And in that sense, it has been a Milgram experiment on steroids of social control as those in the white lab coats have convinced tens, hundreds of millions of Americans to forfeit in two days and two weeks what it took two centuries to build of constitutional core civil liberties and to crush the economy in a month that was setting records just the month before, but took 10 years for us to get there and recovery from the last recession.
So when we look at the consequences, we're finding more and more studies and surveys, whether it's looking at sailors on ships, looking at people in the Diamond Princess, looking at passengers on the Diamond Princess, looking at prisoners in Ohio, looking at the serology tests that are coming out.
And what the serology tests do is unlike right now when you go in for COVID-19 coronavirus testing.
They are looking to whether you currently have the virus.
They cannot test, that method of testing does not test for whether you ever had the virus.
Serology testing, by contrast, tests whether you have certain antivirals of the virus in your body already, which would be substantial evidence that you had it before, even if you don't have it now.
By knowing the scope and scale of how serology testing works, we're able to determine the scope and scale of the viruses reached within a local population.
Well, we now have about a dozen of those.
We have them in France.
We have them in Germany.
We have them in Iceland.
We have them in Santa Clara County.
We have them from prison inmates.
We have them from U.S.
ships and sailors.
We have them, as of yesterday, from L.A.
And they're coming back with the same information again and again and again and again.
And they're almost all showing, whether it's a small town in Germany or Santa Clara County in California, a rate of infection that was 50 times higher than the models assumed.
Now, why is that significant?
The news headlines will try to take that and make it sound scary, make it sound terrifying.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
It means a whole bunch more people had this than we knew.
And we didn't know because they never showed serious symptoms of it.
And many of them didn't show any symptoms at all of it.
It means that their ability to spread it was substantially reduced.
And it also means that the mortality rate, and the hospitalization rate, and the incubation rate, and the ventilator need rate, and the ICU intensive care rate number was way, way too high.
In fact, more and more of this data is showing something that either looks like a severe flu season or something like the Asian flu or the Hong Kong flu, which was about double or triple the risk rate of your typical flu.
But that, to give you an idea, if we had 300,000 people, which would be about six times the rate of the average flu, if we had 300,000 people, excess deaths in the United States, that would only increase our mortality rate in the United States by less than 10%.
So that would be its impact.
Its impact would be a tragedy, but by no means the kind of public tragedy that would justify risking the whole future of the economy and forfeiting two centuries of constitutional core civil liberty.
So that's the sort of trade-off that's taking place.
And what's significant here is that the degree of life expectancy, if we measure it that way, and that's the way they measure it on actuarial tables, that's the way societies and governments and individuals have measured it for as long as such measurements have been made.
In that context, because the disease mostly attacks people who, according to the modelers themselves, half to two-thirds of the people who are going to be listed as dying of coronavirus, even before they started inflating the numbers of people being attributed to dying from coronavirus.
We're people who are going to die within the year anyway.
In other words, these are people who, for example, people die of Alzheimer's, but often the trigger is pneumonia or something else.
So the people that die of cancer, we say they die of cancer, but in fact, usually the cause of death on the death certificate is something else.
Their bodies had already broken down.
And basically, in those cases, all we're really doing is not meaningfully extending their lives.
Instead, what we're doing is we're changing the cause of death on the death certificate.
And that is not the kind of compelling public interest that justifies the kind of extreme measurements that have been taken by these politicians to date.
Indeed, here's an example.
Here's an article from The Australian.
Under 60 in good health?
Well, then crossing the road is more risky than getting coronavirus.
Again, those three standards.
What's the rate of contagion?
What's the means of contagion?
What's the consequences of contagion?
This is that third aspect.
If the consequences of contagion for a particular population is extremely, extremely low risk for you within that group of having any detrimental, serious, disabling, debilitating disease or death, Then the restrictions on your liberty simply cannot be considered narrowly tailored to a compelling public policy interest.
As this article goes into detail, basically the nature of the pandemic, when you study it, is so disproportionately targeting those already vulnerable and those without sufficient immunodeficiency, already have immunodeficiencies, so they don't have the immunity to protect themselves from almost anything that comes along.
In fact, here's the quote, if you're under 60 and in good health, crossing the road is more dangerous than COVID-19.
And even if you're over 60, you may not want to see the economy trashed and society crushed while you are isolated from your children and grandchildren for months.
So, once we know the rate of contagion, the means of contagion, and the consequences of contagion, we can then look at whether or not a compelling public interest justifies the measurements taken, whether those measurements are truly narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
Well here, there's no evidence that almost any of the politicians that have issued these orders have made the empirical evidentiary analysis of the available medical literature.
But putting that aside, in fact what it appears that they misgaged what the means of contagion is, misgaged what the rate of contagion is, and misgaged what is the consequences of contagion for most of the population.
They also did no measurements as to what would be the negative or collateral consequences or detriments to imposing their mitigation policies.
They didn't look at, for example, what happens if we shut down the economy and shut down all elective medical procedures as just one little subcomponent of that.
Well, what happens is elective, by the way, doesn't really mean optional.
Elective in the medical world simply means it's not an emergency need.
It's not something you have to have today.
But in fact, often they are critical and essential to people's ability to protect and defend their safety.
So, for example, there's already estimates that more people will die from cancer and who would not have otherwise died from cancer because they're not getting the cancer treatments they need to get.
That's just one small example.
More people dying from just one lack of access to medical care because of what's the denial, because of the shutdown's effect on elective care for cancer patients.
Just that by itself, killing more people than COVID-19 will kill altogether.
And that's just one study out of the United Kingdom.
There's comparable studies about how this will push people around the world into extreme poverty.
And then it will kill more children in a year Then everybody that will die from the entire world from COVID-19, just from extreme poverty being inflicted on poor populations, particularly children in large parts of the world.
If you measure it from a life expectancy basis, it's a ratio of 10x in terms of 10 times more harm being inflicted by the shutdown than could even possibly occur, even if the shutdown could stop all of the COVID-19 deaths from ever occurring.
That's just a second study.
Other comparable studies have looked at rises in suicides related to unemployment or related to social isolation, the mental and physical stress that imposes on someone, the increased deaths from domestic abuse, child abuse, violence in the home that tends to dramatically rise when those people are sort of crushed together under those circumstances, where an abused only place they can be right now, the only safe place they can be, is in the physical continuous presence of their abuser.
This is the kind of, there's no evidence that any of the politicians did any assessment from an empirical or evidentiary standard on exactly what would be the consequences, the detrimental consequences of their shutdown order just on the quantity of life.
Not to even get into the quality of life impact.
Not to even get into the public economy impact.
Not even to get into other forms of consequential impact like what happens to the core constitutional liberties we spent two centuries building.
Do they ever come back once the politicians figured out they could strip them with such ease here and now?
So when we looked at the rate of contagion, we looked at the means of contagion, we looked at the consequences of contagion, we looked at the consequences of these mitigation techniques, we find that every single evidentiary relevant pertinent matter as to any empirical assessment of that, the politicians have not met it.
The politicians have not shown it.
The politicians have not proven any aspect of it.
Indeed, the evidence consistently rebuts and refutes them.
So when we come back on the bottom half of the hour, I'm going to go into the suit that I filed in Michigan.
Why I filed the suit.
What the suit is.
What the terms of the suit is.
What remedy the suit seeks.
Because it is a minute to midnight on our Constitution and American as we have always known.
So come back and join us after the break.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
So as we reviewed in terms of the purported compelling public interest that the politicians used to rely upon this, they simply didn't meet their evidentiary burden.
They didn't show that if you look into it, that the rate of contagion posed such a risk that it required any of these tactics or techniques that they've used.
That the means of contagion had any relationship to the various mechanisms that they've chosen to suppress civil society, crush the economy, and strip us of our core rights and liberties.
Nor did the consequences of contagion justify the completely lack of targeted approach that they've taken.
This sort of universal mass house arrest was particularly not compelled, given the consequences of this contagion are limited to a discrete group of people.
So that alone by itself shows major problems with what they did.
But it goes further than that.
Because they didn't show that the downsides of their mechanisms did not exceed the benefits that they proclaimed to have.
In other words, they couldn't even show that their methods were really going to achieve any of the main benefits that they claimed.
While at the same time, they failed to completely assess what the risks were, what the downsides were to their tactics that they were taking.
Both in terms of quality of life and in terms of quantity of life.
Whether it's deaths from cancer patients who aren't getting the treatment they need.
Whether it's deaths from children who are going to be forced into extreme poverty.
Whether it's deaths from mental health and physical health due to a lack of purpose and high rates of unemployment.
Whether it's due to deaths due to domestic violence and abuse that's going to skyrocket and already has.
Whether it's deaths from certain kinds of crime that may occur because certain kinds of crime targeting commercial establishments and other places are going to rise.
All of those main factors they failed to do, disputing and refuting their ability to claim any compelling public interest justified their actions or course of conduct.
But also that these remedies were simply never narrowly tailored.
Without knowing the means of contagion, there was no meaning or even meaningfully assessing the evidence when the evidence showed something different than they assumed.
That by itself refuted what they did.
To give an example, There's widespread complaints about people doing public protest out in the open air, in the sunlight, in the heat, in the humidity, in the open public spaces, saying that somehow that poses a risk of spreading the virus unless they're engaged in a social distance form of public protest.
The problem is there's simply no evidence of that.
Almost all of the evidence shows, first of all, this virus dies in sunlight, like a lot of viruses do.
Second, it dies in humidity, like a lot of viruses like this do.
There's at least some evidence that it can't even survive heat or can't be transmitted with any consistency and any risk with heat.
And from almost all the studies, they require someone to be within six feet of each other continuously for at least 15 minutes in a closed setting, not an open public setting.
So there's simply no evidence that being out in public presents any risk at all.
In fact, when they were trying to study the various contagion places that took place and where contagions really got out of hand, In all but one instance, they were able to find it happened in a closed setting within the home or a closed setting within a particular office or restaurant location with recycled air.
It's not been happening by people out in the open.
And yet we have governors and mayors and other local and county and city and state politicians prohibiting people from surfing alone, prohibiting from going out on their boat alone, prohibiting from people from driving in to watch a sunset. alone.
Prohibiting people from going jogging alone.
Prohibiting people from playing t-ball with their daughter in the backyard.
Prohibiting people from weightlifting in their front yard.
Prohibiting people from going to church in a drive-in service.
Prohibiting people from swimming in the lake or the ocean.
They actually went so far as to try to sand in the skating parks in California to try to prohibit the skaters from doing so.
They don't understand the irascible independence of skaters.
They actually decided to make it into a dirt bike track instead, just using the sand for its own utilitarian purposes.
Reminds me years ago of an art exhibit I went to where they had all those art exhibits and this one art exhibit was supposed to be a dysfunctional playground, but you could interact with the art pieces if you wanted to.
And what they is, they had a playground that everything didn't work like it was supposed to.
So like a swing set went into a wall, things like that.
Well, these kids went and found a way and recreated it to make it an effective functional playground.
It was a fascinating sort of public art experiment.
And the surfers have tried to find similar ways, the paddle boarders have tried to find similar ways, and now the skaters and dirt bike riders have found a comparable way.
But what's amazing is that any of those things are restricted or restrained in the first place.
There's simply no evidence that the means of contagion poses any real risk at all to that population.
As the Australian study said, if you're under 60 and healthy, you have a higher risk of dying or suffering a bad health outcome from crossing the street than you do from COVID-19.
Especially engaged in solo activities.
Like being out on your boat on a lake, like fishing off the dock, like surfing, like swimming, like paddle boarding, like taking a walk along the beach, like watching the sunset at night, like taking a jog in the morning, like reading a book in the park.
These are all the most sort of ancient forms of human liberty expressed in the most aesthetically enviable way.
And yet now, yet those have been prohibited and restricted while politicians and the establishment press have been protected and exempted and excluded.
They get to sit in the White House and ask questions of the president, not wearing masks, not engaging in much social distancing, not doing any of the things that they're compelling everyone else to do.
Indeed, while you have people like different high-ranking political personalities and political personalities doing what they want to do in terms of whether it's Chris Cuomo or whether it's George Stephanopoulos strolling through the Hamptons, getting into fight with people that are riding bikes.
They're lecturing everyone else about how they shouldn't be allowed to do a public protest in their own interest.
So that's the kind of position we're in.
The question is, is that, was the means of contagion such a high risk to that group of people, like skaters and surfers and swimmers and beach walkers and people who want to watch the sunset at night or go into a church service in a drive-in?
Was the means of contagion such a risk that that core constitutional activity could be suppressed?
There's simply no evidence to support that at all.
No politician has shown any evidence for that.
And in fact, all the available evidence is contrary to what they said.
Indeed, as noted, the virus doesn't spread in sunlight.
Sunlight is a disinfectant to most viruses.
So can it spread?
Yes.
Is the risk high?
No.
It's extremely low.
It's below the risk of crossing a street.
Are we going to ban people crossing the street because there might be a tiny, tiny, tiny risk of some harm coming to them?
No, we don't.
Because we don't sacrifice quality of life for any small, minutiae increase in quantity of life.
And that is the same constitutional standard and analysis that every political and public official was supposed to go to before they suppressed people's civil rights and civil liberties.
So that is why we ultimately filed suit.
And to give an example, this is going to be the template for the suit.
Going to make it available to people so they can cut and paste from it, copy it, do whatever they want, file pro se.
Other lawyers can use it however they want.
They can get the credit.
I don't care.
It'll be available at BarnesLaw.com later this week.
But let me read from the suit so that you can understand why we brought the suit.
So the suit was brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, the Southern Division.
Brought against Governor Whitmer.
We live in extraordinary times.
For the first time in American history, a governor suspended the constitutional liberties of her state's citizens, proclaiming an emergency exception to the Bill of Rights.
This case harbors no precedent.
Indeed, the closest precedent is a case that lives in infamy.
Korematsu versus the United States.
323 U.S.
214.
When you see those kind of references, there are two citations to court compendiums of court cases that you can find often on Google that also exist in those sort of big legal books you might see in a law library in either a local courthouse or a local law school.
As that Korematsu decision allowed what took place there, but that was unanimously overturned in Trump v. Hawaii, decided in 2018 by the U.S.
Supreme Court, where both the justices that were on the majority side and the dissenting side agreed that Korematsu was bad and dangerous law and should never be restored.
Well now we've taken what happened in Korematsu and we've extended it to the entire nation for the most part.
That's what these cities, counties, and states have done and are threatening to continue to do.
Now they're threatening to revoke people's licenses if they simply engage in business activity that is supposed to be constitutionally protected under these circumstances.
They're padlocking the doors of businesses rather than allow those businesses to even attempt to function.
They're threatening various forms of arrest, fines, citations, and other risks to their property or person if they simply assert their core constitutional liberties.
There's even been threats to people to report them to Child Protective Services to have their children taken away, or people who are non-custodial parents demanding to become custodial parents simply because the other parent engaged in politically protected protest activity.
And we have people like CNN sort of satirizing and saying, well, this is a minority view, these public protests that are taking place.
If CNN had been around in 1776, they indubitably would have said that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were the minority view towards the British Empire.
Often it's the case that the core constitutional liberties are first and foremost protected by a minority of citizens.
And ultimately it becomes a majority in time as people recognize the constitutional consequence of the course of conduct that they witness.
As the suit goes on, the plaintiffs seek to protect their rights, safeguarded under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In this legal action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Gretchen Whitmer in her official capacity as the Governor of the State of Michigan.
Arising out of her unlawful executive orders number 2020-21 and number 2020-42.
The governor placed the plaintiffs in most of Michigan under mass house arrest without inclusion of constitutional activities as essential services and by taking property without due process of law or just compensation.
The governor's predicate for state action is without compelling evidence just as the means taken are not narrowly tailored.
There's various parts of a complaint that where you list the parties, you list the jurisdiction in the venue.
Why does that particular court have authority?
Why is that particular court the right court to deal with it?
Why the parties have a relationship to that court?
What law gives the court jurisdiction authority over the matter?
As it goes into the facts, it goes into what COVID-19.
It mentions that historically no virus infects more than a small percentage of the population in an infected area over a short time in a short time period that causes any calamitous consequences.
The worst virus to this country in the last century, the Spanish flu, required three years and multiple variants to even reach a third of the population in a given area to cause serious consequence.
The COVID-19 virus spreads through close continuous contact in confined quarters via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze, but is generally not generally airborne.
And more than 80% of the people will not get infected even when exposed over time periods like an hour in a restaurant or of three weeks in the case of the Diamond Princess.
The evidence shows the risk of death from infection of the virus transmitted to people while driving, or transmitted in open air in public parks or in public streets, or transmitted while shopping in stores or restaurants, or transmitted anywhere outside a confined setting.
Is negligible to non-existent and substantially less than dying or suffering serious injury from a car accident, bike accident, or from simple medical error by a doctor or hospital.
We don't close down all of our doctors and hospitals because so many people die from medical errors every year.
So why in the world are we shutting down all of civil society for a far less risk of someone getting infected and dying from COVID-19?
Amongst the small minority of people infected, many will be asymptomatic.
Amongst the very few who get infected and ill, all but a small minority will suffer no disabling or debilitating conditions or symptoms.
The risk of death from the virus for the working age population under 65 years of age that are without serious underlying medical conditions is less than the risk from driving a car for a year on American streets and highways.
Or, as the Australian piece put it, less dangerous than walking across the street.
There is no evidence that house arrests, intrastate travel bans, prohibition on purchasing gardening seeds or American flags, prevention of people staying at two different homes that each they own, that drive-in church services, that rental property businesses, that public rallies employing social distancing, that any of that That prohibiting any of that substantially reduces the risk of infection for those vulnerable to disabling illness or death.
Again, the means taken needs to be narrowly tailored to meet the compelling public interest.
And for that, you want to avoid death or debilitating or disabling illness.
And the means has to be something that is going to substantially reduce the risk of that happening.
And not create enhanced risk by the collateral consequences of its mode of operation, of its means, of its method.
And it must be strictly tied between the two.
Doing things like intrastate travel bans does not create, does not radically reduce the death rate from this disease.
There's just no evidence of that.
There's no evidence that house arrest achieves it.
There's no evidence that prohibiting purchasing gardening seeds for your garden does anything to impact significantly the death rate from the disease.
There's no evidence that prohibiting people from buying American flags is going to somehow cure COVID-19.
There's no evidence that preventing people from staying at their lake house or their second vacation property separate from their own property has any substantial reduction in the rate of death from the disease, from COVID-19.
There's no evidence that prohibiting drive-in church services is a magical cure.
There's no evidence that prohibiting rental property businesses from operating, such as Airbnbs and the rest, is a cure for COVID-19.
There's no evidence that preventing public rallies is a cure for COVID-19.
So why are any of those methods being used or approved when they all infringe upon and burden core constitutional liberties?
The suit goes into details about what the governor chose to decide, and basically chose to decide that you can't do anything unless it's, quote, necessary to sustain or protect life, and that she, the governor, the new queen of Michigan, got to determine and decide what constitutes essential activities for life.
It's like a caste system out of India, with its own, but with a far more nefarious effect on the broader public and the population.
It goes into details about how all the things it prohibits and prevents.
Prevents people from driving between their homes.
Prevents them from inviting their neighbors over to a get-together.
Not only that, think about what's happening across the country to elderly who do get sick.
If you get sick, you're probably going to end up going to a hospital where they haven't always taken the necessary protective measurements to prevent you from getting the virus, in fact, in case you're there for some reason other than the virus.
And then if you do get the virus and you become deathly ill, you're not allowed to get last rites from your priest or from your minister.
You're not allowed to see your loved ones before you may pass away on your deathbed.
Your loved ones may not even be able to do a funeral for you.
How is this respecting the elderly?
How is this respecting people's rights and liberties?
How is this protecting either the quality or quantity of life and time?
There's simply no evidence of it.
This is a power grab by power-hungry politicians using a scary virus as a pretext to do so.
There is no evidence that supports their claims that this is either necessary, narrowly tailored, non-discriminatory, or consistent with compelling public interest.
As the suit goes on, what happens here when you have a business, and that business is taken from you with the only pretext being that it's necessary in the public interest.
Well, even if it were necessary in the public interest, the Fifth Amendment protects your property from government taking without just compensation.
And ain't nobody getting just compensation in this.
There's some Wall Street banks getting bailed out.
There's some big corporations that are getting bailed out.
There's some government pension funds getting bailed out.
There's some municipal governments getting bailed out.
There's some foreign currencies and foreign banks and foreign institutions getting bailed out.
But the ordinary person who's been stripped of their property, stripped of their profession, stripped of their vocation, stripped of their occupation, stripped of what their means of making a living.
Those people have not received hardly any compensation, not to mention just compensation that could be considered commensurate or proportionate to what they've been deprived and denied.
And as the Supreme Court made clear in Coalition versus Government Procurement versus Federal Prison Industries, There's another horn versus Department of Agriculture and to quote from that case in 2015 horn versus Department of Agriculture 576 US 350 you can find it if you look online just using that 576 US 350 numbers it will pop up Here's what the Supreme Court said.
Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause.
The Takings Clause is that part of the Fifth Amendment that says the government cannot take your property without just compensation.
Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause or our precedents.
And the Supreme Court is referring to its own precedents, its own prior decisions.
Uh, as binding law.
Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause or our precedents suggests that the rule, uh, this rule requiring just compensation is any different when it comes to appropriation of personal property.
The government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car just as when it takes your home and that applies to your business or anything else.
As the case and complaint goes on, there's no evidence the governor's actions will significantly reduce the risk of excess deaths in Michigan, nor that her chosen course of actions would achieve those ends better than policy alternatives available to her, including social distancing rules for the engagement of social activity and special protection for the most vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with underlying at-risk medical conditions.
The governor failed to substantiate any evidence to compel her actions taken served any compelling public purpose.
The governor failed to substantiate any evidence to compel her actions were narrowly tailored to alternative courses of action that could have been taken.
This is because there's no evidence that Baxter supports the governor's actions taken without either precedence or justification.
Indeed, there is evidence that the governor's actions will cause substantial and irreparable harm.
And the reason for that is the necessity to get injunctive relief is to preclude the governor from doing these in the future.
You have to show some form of harm that cannot be compensated for monetarily.
The exercise of your what you can't get back the opportunity to be with your loved one on their deathbed.
You can't get back the opportunity to play with your family in public.
You can't get back the opportunity to participate in public protests or church services on Easter Sunday.
You can't get back the opportunities that are being taken away from you at this critical time and juncture.
There's no monetary compensation that can adequately substitute for that.
So while there is monetary policies or monetary remuneration or monetary accountability that can happen in the case of just compensation for the taking of your business or the deprivation of your profession or vocation or occupation without due process of law, And in some instances there may be a monetary value that we can put on some of those other core constitutional liberties that have been constricted and restricted in this arena.
There are many that simply have no monetary value that can sufficiently provide for protection against future state abuse like has happened here.
And that is why the allegation of the complaint is that much of the harm that is occurring is often substantial and irreparable harm.
Harm that cannot be remediated by money alone.
Indeed, aside from and beyond the harm to civil liberties, economic opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness that the Governor's policies incalculably inflict, including harm to the physical and mental health of hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan, including risk of higher suicides, stress-induced deaths, and shorter life expectancy.
The trade-off of sacrificing quality of life or quantity of life that the Governor claims as her pretextual predicate For her unprecedented monarchical claims of power over the state's citizens endangers those citizens more than it safeguards them by every material metric.
Indeed, the governor failed to obtain approval within the tricameral protections of the separated powers of government, as the legislature did not approve her actions, nor did the judiciary assent to them prior to them being instituted.
While the public never obtained any participation rights in the process at all, at any stage.
Meanwhile, their protest and petition rights, including petitioning to recall her as governor, are stripped, stopped, and seriously circumvented.
The methodological approach of the governor included over-reliance on partisan data sources she knew to be unreliable and undependable, elevating dubious data over historical evidence, documented surveys, and scientific evidence-based empirically sound advice from experienced scholars, such as eminent Stanford professor John Ioannidis, who contradicted the claims that the governor made.
Dissident or different opinions were excluded or precluded by the governor.
reliable and documented data ignored by the governor, historical evidence and practice abdicated by the governor, and democratic means of decision-making eviscerated by the governor.
That is why we have brought suits under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the suppression of the guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom of petition for redress of grievances.
In addition, we brought a violation of the Takings Clause.
We brought a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to freedom of movement, both within the state and as an individual from your own home, without probable cause of a crime or clear and convincing evidence that you pose an imminent risk to someone's physical health or mental health.
I occasionally see some purported constitutional law professors saying that you don't have a constitutional right to spread a virus.
No one's claiming you have a constitutional right to spread a virus, saying you have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble.
You have a constitutional right to petition your government for redress of grievances.
You have a constitutional right for freedom of speech.
You have a constitutional right for freedom of religious expression.
You have a constitutional right to purchase a weapon for your own self-defense.
You have a constitutional right to your own privacy.
You have a constitutional right to your property within the due process of law with just compensation.
That's the rights that have been denied and deprived.
And when we come back, we'll be taking your calls from you, the jury, to discuss it even further.
The British are coming!
You are about to be part of the race today.
According to all the world's rare, America first.
And not with your husband.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
And looking at what some of the politicians are doing, we can look at graph number one.
You have people like the dear mayor of New York City, Bill D'Stasio is what his name should be in honor of the Stasi of Eastern Germany, who's basically recommending a be a Karen policy off of the Karen memes, recommending that people rat out their friends and neighbors under the stitches get riches rather than get Rather than snitches getting snitches, snitches get riches in New York City and L.A.
if you write out your friend or your family or your neighbor for doing things like maybe they're walking the dog.
Maybe they're going to the park.
Maybe they're going to go take a morning swim.
Maybe they're going out bicycling.
Maybe they're doing something really dangerous like playing t-ball with their daughter in the backyard.
Maybe they're trying to buy seeds to put in a garden.
Who knows what sort of horrendous sort of activities they're up to.
That lead to people like D'Eustassio taking the action that he's taking.
Well, if you look at video photo image number six, dear George Stephanopoulos, who has COVID-19 apparently, while he's busy lecturing Facebook on why Facebook should deprive people of their core opportunities of public protest and peaceable assembly, he's out taking a stroll in the Hamptons, of course.
So the same rules don't apply to George that apply to all of the rest of us.
This is the sort of double standard caste system our politicians and establishment press would impose upon us.
That while they have the freedom to walk where they want, go where they want, work where they want, interact where they want, they don't appear to be under any of the same social distancing guidelines they're compelling for the masses.
They're allowed to do whatever they want, while we're not supposed to have any core liberties or freedoms ourselves, like we've suddenly imposed an Indian caste system of the essential and non-essential, and most of us ordinary folks have been stuck into the non-essential category.
In the same context, when we look at what the alternatives could have been, let's look at what is happening in Sweden.
First, let's take a look at video clip number nine, where the Swedish epidemiologist is talking about why they did what they did and what, in fact, is happening in Sweden.
This is what we could have done here.
This is what the governor of Michigan and other places chose not to do.
And by the way, we'll get to the data.
The data from Sweden is better than the data from Michigan, particularly since they started out almost the same.
They have comparable populations, similar demographics in many respects, and yet a Post-shutdown, when we measure the post-shutdown consequences of the public policy.
And that's a different, that's a day or two in terms of the number of cases, new cases.
That's more like 10 days or 14 days in terms of estimating the effect on hospitalization and ICU rates.
And it's closer to 21 days in measuring death.
We can compare.
Some of that data is now already available.
And what is already out there is showing, as Steve Deese and others have been showing, is that, in fact, Sweden is doing better than Michigan is by almost every measurable metric, even though Michigan has, even though Sweden has not shut down at all compared to what Michigan has done.
And in fact, articles today in The Spectator about how the Swedish experiment looks like it's paying off.
But let's go to video clip number nine with them interviewing people in Sweden about it.
I am not that scared,
but we're like staying outside or at our home, not being too close to other people or in restaurants.
So we're trying as hard as we can.
We're trying to get some food.
My mom is out doing stuff, too.
Also my sister.
They are walking the dog, or they are going to different dinners, hanging out with friends.
So I feel like if they can go out, I should do that, too.
because the risk is almost the same. ...
When we look at the flu season suddenly ending, we can see that Khaleesi with the vomiting disease also suddenly ending.
Obviously what we are doing and what people are doing here in the society has a lot of effect on the spread of viruses.
And being outside like we are doing right now without being too close to each other is obviously not the way that this virus is spread.
It's spread when you're inside, when you're close together with people.
So that those kind of pictures doesn't worry me as much as many other things I've seen.
But here we have a lot of trust between the politics and the agency levels.
And we keep on having a constant dialogue on what's best to do in the situation we have in Sweden with the possibilities we have here to diminish the impact on public health in this pandemic we're living with.
"I don't know what I'm doing, I don't know what I'm doing." This long-term thing on the low scale that we do in Sweden is much more sustainable and would not cause these enormous differences in the amount of cases getting into healthcare in the same way.
So I think both Norway and Denmark are now very concerned about how do you stop this complete lockdowns in a way so you don't cause this wave to come immediately when you start loosening up.
In fact, as the article in The Spectator goes into detail, the big predictions where there was going to be like 100,000 people are going to die in Sweden.
They were going to have 10,000 people in ICU units.
They're going to be flooded in the hospitals.
They're just going to be completely consumed and that their strategy would totally backfire within days or weeks.
But here's what in fact the evidence shows.
Perhaps more important is the situation at our hospitals and their intensive care wards.
The main ambition of suppression policies After all has been to avoid hospitals getting overwhelmed by patients they cannot treat because of shortages of staff equipment and intensive care bids as forecast by the modelers.
The modelers in Sweden that followed an Imperial College type approach said demand would be at 8,000 to 9,000 patients in intensive care per day.
But actual numbers are telling a very different story.
Indeed, we now have about 530 patients in intensive care, not 8,000 or 9,000, and the hospital capacity is double that.
Indeed, Stockholm now averages about 220 critical care patients per day, far from being overwhelmed, and have capacity for at least another 70.
Stockholm also reports that several hundred inpatient care beds are unoccupied and that in fact anyone should come in if they feel sick.
So in fact the Swedish data is not only that is the death rate flat and less than a lot of comparable places during the time period in which we could measure the effect of their mitigation techniques, which was let's just do public social distancing, let's not have too many mass events, let's protect our elderly and most vulnerable, and And if we do that, then we can succeed in containing this virus without sacrificing our quality of life, without sacrificing our ancient liberties, without sacrificing our public economy.
And they are succeeding.
And they are succeeding better than many parts of the United States.
Indeed, when you compare Sweden to, say, Britain or to Michigan or to France, or to Spain, or to Italy, these other countries that have used extreme shutdown techniques, you find that Sweden is much better off.
Indeed, other countries that refuse to shut down, including, but not limited to, Taiwan, to South Korea, like Sweden, have experienced better outcomes, as measured in terms of their population, than almost any of the areas, the states, or regions, or nations that issued their broad-scale shutdown.
In a similar way, one of the reporters that's been reporting on this consistently and continuously is a former New York Times reporter that you can find on Twitter, Alex Berenson, who recently did an interview with Fox and other publications, and he's been going day by day by day about not only how bad the modelers were in terms of projecting the worst case scenarios that never came true,
But also the collateral consequences of the various techniques being utilized by various governments, not only in terms of oppression of civil liberties, but in terms of the quality and quantity of life as measured by a range of surveys and studies.
Indeed more and more articles and more and more people are reporting on the same thing.
As in the Atlantic, the article says keep the parks open.
Why?
Because public green spaces are good for the immune system and the mind.
And they can easily be rationed to quote allow for social distancing.
Though I would note, again, outside in the sunlight, in the heat, in the humidity, the probability of this disease spreading between people just walking by each other is next to non-existent by almost all the evidence.
It's extremely negligible.
Extremely low.
The social distancing protocols during the Spanish flu like now were intended for when you're inside in confined quarters in close continuous contact with people for more than 15 minutes with someone who may be infected or with a recycled air system that may carry infected air.
That was the cause for concern.
That's where social distancing methods, that's where masks and other things can come into play.
But yet at the same time, that is counter-indifferent than what is being told in this sort of one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't fit really anybody in the end.
Indeed, as an article was written today in a public policy publication, AEIR, it describes that our public policy shutdown, like this governor policy, is, quote, the worst public policy in a century.
It talks about how the costs of the lockdowns are unrecoverable.
Whereas the benefits are increasingly not present.
And it goes through detail after detail after detail about how this was not an empirically weighted, evidence-based decision, as people like Professor John Ioannidis, who studies statistics, who studies microbiology, who studies epidemiology, forecast all the way back in early March.
And increasingly, people are willing to second-guess and question the logic of vaccines being the universal and sole solution to this.
This includes Novak Djokovic telling ESPN that he has doubts about whether forced vaccinations are the appropriate remedy in this context.
So you're seeing people that have previously kept quiet about their questions about vaccines now willing to raise questions about vaccines due to the history of it.
In the same context, we're seeing more economic fallout from what has been taking place, including the pandemic.
It was going to, quote, require comprehensive debt standstills.
Emerging market economies might have to be allowed to defer all payments to international creditors for at least a year or more.
In many of these cases, these emerging markets owe this debt to China, who may use it to seize domestic assets of emerging markets around the world.
This is also where world poverty may spike.
This is also where the U.S.
Fed may have to bail them out in various forms of currency swaps.
Now, what happens when the economy collapses in that kind of manner?
Well, you get consequences as this article details about how market disintegration led to a mortality and nutritional crisis in the Weimar Republic in the lead up to Nazi Germany and helped bring about Nazi Germany.
At the same time, in those kind of tactics, what's China doing?
China is using the pretext of the pandemic and the world's obsession with it to round up protesters in Hong Kong.
As this article details China's Hong Kong roundup, Beijing increases its hold on the territory with a spate of arrests.
But at least some states are pushing back against China's Policy in response to this pandemic, the state of Missouri decided to file suit against China for enormous consequences of the coronavirus deceit.
Now, there is a core issue here in that various foreign governments have sovereign immunity because Congress chose to give it to them in 1976.
So unless that law gets changed in a meaningful and material manner, China may be able to escape and evade responsibility for their extraordinary dereliction of actions in this context.
And it is a useful reminder as we look at the options.
We see the option that Sweden has pursued.
We see the options that we could have pursued.
We see the options that both history and evidence supported compared to what we're doing now.
Well, we've gone down this wrong path, this vaccine only path before.
Let's look back at a review and we'll get into further detail of it.
Well, as we're talking about that, let's look at how Bill Gates and Melinda Gates have handled it.
Their policy has been a vaccine-focused policy.
And let's look at some of the context for what they believe here in a second, in a 60 Minutes interview, where they're talking about, and where the 60 Minutes interviewer is talking about how there's just too many people out there, particularly poor people in poor countries.
It gives you an idea of the mindset of where some of these vaccine overpopulation obsessed people derive.
But we will take, in the bottom half of the hour, your calls as part of the jury so that you can publicly participate in at least this part of the process.
You can't participate in the governors and the mayors and the city, county, and state officials just trampling your rights.
But we want to give you a voice at least here on this platform.
So you can call in at 877-789-2539.
Call in at 877-789-2539.
That's 877-789-2539.
And you can call internationally at area code 512-646-1779.
That's 512-646-1776.
There's a certain sort of mindset and mentality that these governors and politicians have followed that reflect a distorted obsession with questionable issues that reminds me substantially of how the Chinese did their one-child policy but also before that We're obsessed with various animals and other things that help precipitate, in the name of public health, precipitate one of the worst famines the world has ever known.
Let's take a look and remember the good old days from Mao and what happens when we let the white lab coats run the world in video clip number six.
1957, China's chairman launched four pest campaigns.
Because he was obsessed with mosquitoes and flies, and particularly became obsessed with sparrows.
He claimed sparrows were the core problem.
So the masses of China had to be mobilized.
They took to even banging drums and pans to scare away the birds.
Because the birds, according to the sparrows, they were the great threat.
In the same way COVID-19 is now the great threat, the birds and sparrows had to be gotten rid of.
And Mao insisted the Chinese public rally together to do it.
So the sparrows were exterminated.
The only problem is the sparrows were key to preventing various infectious bugs from getting into the food supply.
So when the birds were no longer around to control them, the insect population exploded.
Locusts swarmed over the country eating almost everything in their path.
The huge ecological disaster unfolded, and one of the worst famines that they now call the Great Famine came to China.
It estimates that China's obsession with protecting their public health, killing all the sparrows, led to 15 million dead in just a few years.
Indeed, the only way we're able to know that, of course, is the Communists have detailed record times.
that increasingly archives from the communist era were being declassified.
And they really allow me to put together what I would refer to as a self-portrait by the Communist Party of China.
This extraordinary image that
comes from a report by a local carter in a county in Sichuan province, where he finds out that locally in the county, about a quarter of a million of kilos of mud had been dug up and eaten.
So he wants to find out what happens.
He goes down to the village.
He sees a pit.
With villagers naked, sweating under the glare of the sun, shriveled bodies queuing up in order to go down the pit and grab a handful of the white porcelain-colored mud referred to as Guanyin soil.
It's a vision of hell.
It's a vision of hell.
And once you know what happens when people ingest mud, once the moisture is taken out, it acts like concrete.
So the entire digestive system is entirely blocked up.
People die of pain, excruciating pain.
It's awful.
Those kind of mass famines and horrible, horrific human disasters take place because politicians and the people in the white lab coats become obsessed with some particular agenda, often without the basis in real medical literature, empirical science, more power grab or power experiment than it is a public health protective measurement.
And it often leads to mass death.
It's what statism naturally, inevitably, inescapably produces, whether it's Pol Pot in Cambodia, whether it's Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, whether it's Mao in China or Stalin in Russia.
We see the same consequences consistently produced by undue trust in the state, undue delegation of power to the state.
And particularly when they're acting in our public health best interest is when they do some of the most nefarious and dangerous activities.
Let's look at, for example, in a 60 Minutes interview where this interview is short.
And we only have a short part of it because it's revelatory in how the 60 Minutes interviewer simply presumes that clearly these poor people having so many kids is a terrible thing.
And that he's willing to not only voice it, but to air the fact that he voiced it and how willingly and eager Melinda Gates, Bill Gates, his wife and the co-founder of the Gates Foundation, is to embrace it significantly.
So let's take a look at video clip number eight because it's the same kind of mindset and mentality that someone like Mao has with we're gonna get rid of the sparrows and it leads to mass starvation.
When people become obsessed with overpopulation, when people become obsessed with their public health superiority to democratic systems, we end up with consequences like the Great Famine.
So let's take a look at clip number eight.
We were at one of these meetings.
Yesterday, and I remember that a lady told you that she had had eight children, and four of them had died in childbirth, or shortly thereafter.
But if all of them had survived, she'd have eight children.
And what the developing world does not need is more children.
And I think that was the biggest Aha to Bill and me when we got into this work, as we asked ourselves, of course, the same hard-nosed question you'd ask, which is, if you get into this work and you start to save these children, will women just keep overpopulating the world?
And thank goodness, the converse is absolutely true.
They don't do that because women say to themselves, they want two children to survive into adulthood.
If she knows that two will survive into adulthood, she will naturally bring down her population.
And so as soon as she starts to see that getting them vaccinated or keeping them alive during the birth, she won't have as many children.
That's what we just heard from this group as well, that the older women had had more children, hoping more would survive, but the younger women are starting to plan for smaller families because they know they'll live.
They all said they wanted three.
Yeah, which is fantastic.
That's what you want, yeah.
So if you understand that there's a high likelihood that your child is going to survive, you believe they'll have fewer.
Absolutely, and we're seeing that play out in all the population numbers across the globe.
In fact, the population rates are coming down faster than had been predicted 10 years ago.
When you hear people say, oh, Bill Gates just cares about reducing global poverty, or Gates only cares about more people getting vaccinated to protect people's health, the reality, as is disclosed and revealed in that very revealing interview, is that the great horror was all these poor people in the developing world having all these kids.
That's the repugnant disgust that the 60 Minutes interviewer voices and then broadcast.
And not only does Melinda Gates embrace it, she says that was the aha moment for Bill Gates.
That in fact, it's entirely driven by his obsession about controlling the population, particularly of poor countries and poor areas, preventing them from having big families.
That is his number one motivation and drive, according to Melinda Gates' own admission to 60 Minutes, embraced by 60 Minutes.
In this ideology that celebrates vaccines in the name of reducing population, in the name of having control over who gets to have kids and how many kids they get to have.
That is the mindset and the mentality that's being followed.
And this sort of statist embrace is something we should always be cognizant of and always be concerned with, not only because of the great famine example, not only because of this sort of ideology of how terrible it is somehow that poor people have too many kids, can decide their own family size, as voiced in that morally horrendous 60 Minutes interview, but we should remember what the cultural revolution was.
Some of the mindset and mentality it was and how easy it was for China to end up turning on, have their parents turn on their kids, their kids turn on their parents, friends turn on their friends, family members turn on family members, neighbors turn on neighbors, all because of the ideology of destruction of the olds and how they needed to put in new positions of power and this sort of distortion of the right to rebellion in the form of status control and status maladaption.
So let's take a look at a little trip down memory lane in video clip number five, what happens when we put too much power in the hands of the state.
All ideas contrary to Mao's thinking and the objects that represented them had to be destroyed.
Not just Confucianism and Buddhism, but even more so foreign faiths like Christianity.
Throughout the country, churches were closed, clergy unfrocked, religious symbols smashed.
The statue of the Virgin Mary was replaced by a portrait of Mao.
One form of worship gave way to another.
It has to become a better world, and of course it didn't.
and became a much worse world.
The physical destruction brought by the Red Guards was unparalleled even in China's long history. - Thank you.
Monasteries all over the country, as far away as distant Tibet, were ransacked and razed to the ground.
The most important sites, like the Forbidden City, were protected on the orders of Zhou Enlai.
But elsewhere, mouse storm troops had free reign.
Joe and Li's implicit distinction between smashing bourgeois ideas and smashing bourgeois individuals was quickly forgotten. - Over the next few weeks, tens of thousands of people in Beijing were harangued and severely beaten.
Many hundreds died.
I can remember as though it were yesterday watching a group of strongly built students, including some of my own classmates, boys who practiced martial arts, jump up onto the platform.
1928, until he dared to criticize the chairman's great leap forward, was dragged out and publicly vilified.
To his Red Guard accusers, Peng was a three-antis element.
Wasteful, corrupt and bureaucratic.
Disloyal to Chairman Mao.
Zhang Wentian, Mao's predecessor as party leader in the 1930s, was damned alongside him.
Both men had devoted their lives to the Chinese Revolution.
Now, they have no rights.
Wuhan was undergoing a slow descent into hell.
The highest-ranking victims were brought out for public humiliation before mass meetings in a football stadium.
They wore placards around their necks with their names crossed out, like common criminals awaiting execution.
Wuhan was a playwright, one of whose works angered Mao.
The chairman used it as a pretext to overthrow Wu's patron, the mayor of Beijing, Tom Johnny.
The purge he'd set in motion would eventually claim other victims, still higher in the chain of command.
Meanwhile, Fulman and his colleagues were left to twist in the wind.
How long before we have our own Red Guards of Karen's patrolling the streets in the name of dear leader Governor Whitmer of Michigan or DeStasio from New York?
That's the kind of mindset and mentality we've seen unleashed on people for simply publicly protesting these activities across the country this past weekend in anticipation of this weekend.
We even have Facebook declaring that they're not going to allow those organizations to organize through Facebook.
And saying they're doing so on the behest or at the behalf of the various politicians who have requested it in one way, shape or form, according to published media reports.
At the same time, we're seeing politicians try to restrict and restrain this activity By suggesting it was somehow dangerous for them to engage in it.
We're seeing constitutional law scholars purport to represent constitutional law while saying that there's no constitutional right for them to engage in this activity because somehow it's dangerous to public health.
That is the kind of mindset mentality, the kind of mindset mentality that seized China during the Cultural Revolution to lead young people to condemn old people, to condemn family members, to condemn family members, friends to condemn friends, to public humiliation and death.
That's the kind of mindset and mentality we must be constantly, vigilantly watching here in the United States.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
Now we're now going to take your calls as you as a member of the jury to get your participation, at least on this platform in this political process.
And so let's go to Johnny from Denmark.
Hi, Bob.
Hey, how are you?
Great.
I've been appreciating your work for quite some time.
Kudos to you for your great documentaries.
A nice title for your show, though, in retrospect, listening to it, I think that Global Countdown might be a better name for it, because you very well tie in what's happening in America to the rest of the world, because America seems to lead and the rest of the world seems to follow.
I'd just like to go over, I actually have a set, it sounds like a lot of 22, but I can speak pretty quickly like you, and NWO goals that are very well served by this tragicomical MSM and NWO hyping of this so-called COVID-19 disease, a fake disease.
Based on a fake diagnostic test and a fake pandemic.
And I'll just rattle them off.
I can do it pretty quickly.
One terrestrial, one distraction from the now several years continual investigation, indictment, arrest, booking, arraignment, prosecution, sentencing, imprisonment, etc.
of NWO members to further demonization and scapegoating of Christians, libertarians, Especially USA Patriots, Republicans with a capital R, and Republicans with a lowercase r, etc.
Especially Donald Trump.
Three excusing of NWO super villains not standing trial for many decades.
Of heinous felonies against the U.S.
West species and planet, think Hillary Clinton.
Four, human depopulation, especially of the elderly and immunocompromised, think insurance companies and government programs like Social Security.
Five, disease induction, great for the medical pharmaceutical industry.
Six, at least evidently forced vaccination and microchipping for vaccination, which is supposed to be a crazy Alex Jones conspiracy theory, and now it's an obvious fact.
7.
Medical martial law, especially in East Asian and third world nations.
Look at all the protests in Hong Kong and Taiwan that have now been eliminated.
8.
Economic resetting.
9.
Currency demonization and elimination.
10.
Media censorship.
11.
Disruption and digitization of campaigning and voting in the 2020 US election.
12.
Masking of adverse health effects, especially 5G and 6G.
13.
General authoritarian fear promotion.
14.
Strengthening of the, in Eisenhower's famous words, scientific technological elite.
15.
Further dividing and conquering of humanity.
Always fun, especially for barons of demographic warfare like Obama.
16.
Further systemic dumbing down of the general public.
17.
Bundling of pro-NWO with anti-Wuhan coronavirus legislation, especially spending legislation, to further the figure of de facto glorification and deification or demi-deification of villainous globalists, for example, Fauci, Gates, and Soros.
19.
Further governmental infringement of and elimination of unalienable human rights.
Twenty, end of the free market.
Twenty-one, monopolization of online education.
And guess who has a program for that?
Yes, Bill Gates.
And twenty-two, promotion of the satanic Sabbatean Frankist agenda.
And interestingly enough, all twenty-two of these points I gleaned from various InfoWars shows.
Yourself, Alex Jones's, David Knight's, and Owen Troyer's.
... aspects of what's happening here that is being used to promote agendas independent of and separate from our true public health.
And they're taking tactics and techniques that are in fact a danger to our public health, not only in terms of quantity of life, but also quality of life in terms of our constitutional liberties and public economy.
And it's useful to go down and sort of trip down memory lane and to remember that this has been a problem in the past.
Back in 1976, there was a swine flu epidemic.
This swine flu epidemic never reached the scope and scale or severity that the various public health officials and the white lab coats promised.
But what did come about was a rushed vaccination that led to a wide range of harm.
Back when 60 Minutes was still doing investigative reporting rather than simply being a propaganda arm for certain political causes, they actually reported on this.
Let's actually go to video clip number seven.
The flu season is upon us.
Which type will we worry about this year?
And what kind of shots will we be told to take?
Remember the swine flu scare of 1976?
That was the year the U.S.
government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation.
And Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak, a pandemic.
Well, 46 million of us obediently took the shot.
And now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to $3.5 billion.
Because of what happened when they took that shot, by far the greatest number of the claims, two-thirds of them, are for neurological damage or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.
We pick up the story back in 1976 when the threat posed by the swine flu virus seemed very real indeed.
This virus was the cause of a pandemic in 1918 and 1919 that resulted in over half a million deaths in the United States, as well as 20 million deaths around the world.
See how easy it is to... Thus, the U.S.
government's publicity machine was cranked into action to urge all America to protect itself against the swine flu menace.
Influenza is serious business.
During major flu epidemics, millions of people are sick and thousands die.
Well, this year you can get protection.
The vaccines are safe, easy to take, and they can protect you against flu.
So roll up your sleeve.
Protect yourself.
One of those who did roll up her sleeve was Judy Roberts.
She was perfectly healthy, an active woman, when in November of 1976, she took her shot.
Two weeks later, she says, she began to feel a numbness starting up her legs.
I joked about it that time.
I said I'll be numb to the knees by Friday if this keeps up.
By the following week, I was totally paralyzed.
So completely paralyzed, in fact, that they had to operate on her to enable her to breathe.
And for six months, Judy Roberts was a quadriplegic.
The diagnosis?
A neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome, GBS for short.
These neurological diseases are little understood.
They affect people in different ways.
As you can see in these home movies taken by a friend, Judy Roberts' paralysis confined her mostly to a wheelchair for over a year.
But this disease can even kill.
Indeed, there are 300 claims now pending from the families of GBS victims who died, allegedly as a result of the swine flu shot.
In other GBS victims, the crippling effects diminish and all but disappear.
But for Judy Roberts, progress back to good health has been painful and partial.
Now, I notice that your smile, Judy, is a little bit constricted.
Yes, it is.
Is it different from what it used to be?
Very different.
I have a greatly decreased mobility in my lips, and I can't drink through a straw on the right-hand side.
I can't blow out birthday candles.
I don't whistle anymore, for which my husband is grateful.
It may be a little difficult for you to answer this question, but have you recovered As much as you are going to recover?
Yes.
This, this is it.
So you will now have a legacy of braces on your legs for the rest of your life?
Yes.
The weakness in my hands will stay and the leg braces will stay.
So Judy Roberts and her husband have filed a claim against the U.S.
government.
They're asking 12 million dollars, though they don't expect to get nearly that much.
Judy, why did you take the blue shot?
I'd never taken any other flu shots, but I felt like this was going to be a major epidemic.
And the only way to prevent a major epidemic of a really deadly variety of flu was for everybody to be immunized.
Where did this so-called deadly variety of flu, where did it first hit back in 1976?
It began right here at Fort Dixon, New Jersey in January of that year when a number of recruits began to complain of respiratory illness, something like the common cold.
An army doctor here sent samples of their frolt cultures to the New Jersey Public Health Lab to find out just what kind of bug was going around here.
One of those samples was from a Private David Lewis who had left his sickbed to go on a forced march.
Private Lewis had collapsed on that march, and his sergeant had revived him by mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
But the sergeant showed no signs of illness.
A few days later, Private Lewis died.
If this disease is so potentially fatal that it's going to kill a young, healthy man, a middle-aged school teacher doesn't have a prayer.
The New Jersey lab identified most of those soldiers' throat cultures as the normal kind of flu virus going around back here, but they could not make out what kind of virus was in the culture from the dead soldier and from four others who were sick.
So they sent those cultures to the Federal Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia for further study.
A few days later, they got the verdict.
Swine flu.
But that much-publicized outbreak of swine flu at Fort Dix involved only Private Lewis, who died, and those four other soldiers who recovered completely without the swine flu shot.
If I had known at that time that the boy had been in a sickbed, got up, went out on a forced march, and then collapsed and died, I would never have taken a shot.
The rationale for our recommendation was not on the basis of the death of a single individual, but it was on the basis that when we do see a change in the characteristics of the influenza virus, it is a massive public health problem in this country.
Dr. David Sensor, then head of the CDC, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, is now in private industry.
He devised the swine flu program, and he pushed it.
You began to give flu shots to the American people in October of 76.
October 1st.
By that time, how many cases of swine flu around the world had been reported?
There had been several reported, but none confirmed.
There had been cases in Australia that were reported by the press, by the news media, there were cases in... None confirmed.
Did you ever uncover any other outbreaks of swine flu?
Anywhere in the world?
No.
Now nearly everyone was to receive the shot in a public health facility where a doctor might not be present.
Therefore it was up to the CDC to come up with some kind of official consent form.
Giving the public all the information it needed about the swine flu shot.
This form stated that the swine flu vaccine had been tested.
What it didn't say was that after those tests were completed, the scientists developed another vaccine.
And that was the one given to most of the 46 million who took the shot.
That vaccine was called X53A.
Was X53A ever field tested?
Was X53A ever field tested?
I can't say.
I would have to... It wasn't?
I don't know.
I would think that you're in charge of the program.
I would have to check the records.
I haven't looked at this in some time.
The information form, the consent form, was also supposed to warn people about any risks of serious complications following the shot.
But did it?
No, I had never heard of any reactions other than a sore arm, fever, this sort of thing.
Judy Roberts' husband, Gene, also took the shot.
Yes, I looked at that document.
I signed it.
Nothing on there said I was going to have a heart attack or I'd get Guillain-Barre, which I never heard of.
What if people from the government, from the Center for Disease Control, what if they had indeed known about it?
What would be your feeling?
They should have told us.
Did anyone ever come to you and say, you know something, fellas?
There's the possibility of neurological damage.
If you get into a mass immunization program?
No.
No one ever did?
No.
Do you know Michael Hatwick?
Yes.
Dr. Michael Hatwick directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program at the CDC.
His job was to find out what possible complications could arise from taking the shot and to report his findings to those in charge.
Did you know ahead of time, Dr. Hatwick?
That there had been case reports of neurological disorders, neurological illness, apparently associated with the injection of influenza vaccine.
Absolutely.
You did?
Yes.
How'd you know that?
By review of the literature.
So you told your superiors, the men in charge of the swine flu immunization program, about the possibility of neurological disorders?
Absolutely.
What would you say if I told you that your superiors say that you never told them about the possibility of neurological complications?
That's nonsense.
I can't believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination.
That simply is not true.
We did know that.
I've said that Dr. Hatwick never told me of his feelings on this subject.
And he's lying.
I guess you would have to make that assumption.
Then why does this report from your own agency dated July 1976 list neurological complications as a possibility?
I think the The consensus of the scientific community was that the evidence relating neurologic disorders to influenza immunization that they did not feel that this association was a real one.
You didn't feel it was necessary to tell American people that information?
I think that over the years we have tried to inform the American people as fully as possible.
As part of informing Americans about the swine flu threat, Dr. Sensor's CDC also helped create the advertising to get the public to take the shot.
Let me read to you from one of your own agency's memos, planning the campaign to urge Americans to take the shot.
The swine flu vaccine has been taken by many important persons, he wrote.
Example, President Ford, Henry Kissinger, Elton John, Muhammad Ali, Mary Tyler Moore, Rudolph Nureyev, Walter Cronkite, Ralph Nader, Edward Kennedy, etc., etc.
True.
I'm not familiar with that particular piece of paper, but I do know that at least of that group, President Ford did take the vaccination.
Did you talk to these people beforehand to find out if they planned to take the shot?
I did not know.
Did anybody?
I do not know.
Did you get permission to use their names in your campaign?
I do not know.
Mary, did you take a swine flu shot?
No, I did not.
Did you give them permission to use your name saying that you had or were going to?
Absolutely not.
Never did.
Did you ask your own doctor about taking the swine flu shot?
Yes, and at the time he thought it might be a good idea.
But I resisted it because I was leery of having the symptoms that sometimes go with that kind of inoculation.
So you didn't?
No, I didn't.
Have you spoken to your doctor since?
Yes.
And?
He's delighted that I didn't take that shot.
You're in charge.
Somebody's in charge.
There are... This is your advertising strategy that I have a copy of here.
Who's it signed by?
This one is unsigned.
But you'll acknowledge that it was your baby, so to speak.
It could have been from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
It could be from CDC.
I don't know.
I'll be happy to take responsibility for it.
It's been three years now since you fell ill with GBS.
Right?
Right.
Has the federal government, in your estimation, played fair with you about your claim?
No, I don't think so.
It seems to be dragging on and on and on.
And really, no end in sight that I can see at this point.
With respect to the cases of Guillain-Barre... Former Secretary of HEW Joseph Califano, too, was disturbed that there was no end in sight.
So a year and a half ago, he promised that Uncle Sam would cut the bureaucratic red tape for victims suffering from GDS and would pay up quickly.
We shouldn't hold them to an impossible or too difficult standard of proving that they were hurt.
Even if we pay a few people a few thousand dollars that might not have deserved it, I think justice requires that we promptly pay those people who do deserve it.
Well, who's making the decision to be so hard-nosed about settling?
Well, I assume the Justice Department is.
Griffin Bell, before he left?
Well, the Justice Department agreed to the statement I made.
It was cleared word for word with the lawyers in the Justice Department by my HEW lawyers.
And that statement said, in effect... That statement said that we should pay Guillain-Barré claims without regard to whether the federal government was negligent if they resulted from the swine flu shot.
I think the government knows it's wrong.
If it drags out long enough, people will just give up.
Let it go.
I am a little more adamant in my thoughts than my wife is.
Because I told Judy to take the shot.
She wasn't going to take it.
She never had had shots.
And I'm mad with my government.
Because they knew the facts.
But they didn't release those facts.
Because if they had released them, the people wouldn't have taken them.
And they can come out tomorrow.
And tell me there's going to be an epidemic.
And they can drop off like flies to next week.
I will not take another shot that my government tells me to take.
Meantime, Judy Roberts and some 4,000 others like her are still waiting for their day in court.
I don't need another flu shot.
I had a flu shot last year.
A swine flu epidemic may be coming.
Swine flu shot?
Well, I don't know.
I've been thinking about it.
It could make you very sick.
Swine flu?
Man, I'm too fast for them to catch me.
You'll want to be protected.
I'm the healthiest 55-year-old you've ever seen.
Hey, I play golf every weekend.
Get a shot of protection.
The swine flu shot.
Joe brought it home from the office.
He gave it to Betty and one of his kids.
And to Betty's mother.
But Betty's mother went back to California the next day.
On her way to the airport, she gave it to a cab driver, a ticket agent, and one of the charming stewardesses.
At school, Joe's kid gave it to some other kids, and Mrs. Merrill got it and gave it to her husband.
In California, Betty's mother gave it to her best friend, Dottie.
But Dottie had a heart condition and she died.
But before she died, Dottie gave it to her girlfriend, the mailman, the paper boy, and the vet when she went to pick up her chihuahua.
If a swine flu epidemic comes, this is how it could spread.
You'll want to be protected, especially if you're elderly or chronically ill.
Get a shot of protection, the swine flu shot.
So the 60 Minutes actually covered back then what was the scandal of what is now being attempted here today, where you have some people saying that we have to wait to reopen civil society, condition our civil society being reopened, condition and make contingent our public economy restarting.
Based on people taking another rushed vaccine flu shot, even though coronavirus flu shots have not had a particularly good history of having highly successful, quickly developed vaccines, going back to 1976 in terms of that swine flu shot.
So we saw there what happened was the politicians lied, the press lied, they exaggerated, they got people to rush in, 46 million Americans to take a shot, and that led to more people dying and suffering debilitating illness than ever did suffer from that pandemic.
That actually the epidemic never became a true pandemic.
It was, but there you had the head of the CDC just rushing in and now we have the same pattern of rushed behavior based on seizing power more than protecting public health.
Indeed, as a Stanford professor reported, the claims of the current coronavirus death rate are likely orders of magnitude lower than first thought.
As a recent headline based on recent serology studies.
Similarly, we have data showing that the charts showing the actual infections being at mostly a flat rate in Ohio compared to what they said it was going to be as the pretext for shutting the society down there.
Let's go to one last call before we wrap up tonight.
Let's go to Amy from Minnesota.
Well, yeah, Mr. Barnes, I'm calling from Minnesota and I'm very concerned about What the governor here, Walt, is willing to do to harm the economy and people's livelihood in this state.
A large portion of the state's economy revolves around resorts.
And there was a resort owner, Bob Barton, at the Capitol protesting last week.
And he came on Breitbart on a video and said that if Minnesota Even goes another 30 days with a stay-at-home order, he will lose his resort, his entire life savings, and his home, because most resort owners live...or many, many live on their resort.
And it's just, well, they make their entire income in just several months in the summer, and it's already been extended a month into that period of time.
And it's just very concerning because Walls wants to open up this economy very slowly, tie everything, every livelihood in order to go back to work to testing.
And he's very dictatorial, and he's endangering people's livelihood.
Well, yes, ma'am.
Thanks for calling in.
There's no question that's what's happening all across the country.
They're endangering livelihoods, they're endangering lives.
The people aren't getting medical care treatment that they need.
What do people think happens to medical care when there isn't an economy to support medical care?
What happens to medical care when elective care is effectively shut down?
What happens when all kinds of mental health and physical health problems skyrocket because of social isolation, lack of purpose, and economic depression?
▲
Export Selection