All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes
01:47:09
20200514_Thu_Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The British are coming!
The British are coming!
You are about to be on the great debate.
And one more of the rare.
America first!
Yes, it's hot!
What's your country?
Oh!
Welcome to another edition of American Countdown.
This Thursday, May 14, 2020.
Day 61 in parts of the country of the shutdown and suspension of the Constitution and deprivation of economic opportunity continues in certain parts of the country, including in California, including in large parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Some of our largest states continuing to experience a full shutdown.
Other states experiencing partial shutdown.
In Gallup, New Mexico, there are reports of the National Guard on the streets.
And in that same capacity, we have to ask ourselves, are we going to have a Waco-style response to this pandemic?
Indeed, what is recommended to President Trump apparently by various military or political officials?
It's that Trump should mobilize the military to distribute a quote-unquote vaccine for the virus.
Indeed, the president disclosed on CBS that this has been pitched to him, and the pitch is that he should rapidly mobilize the US military to distribute a coronavirus vaccine once it's ready.
Indeed, quote, there's already efforts to mobilize the military and other forces to And they're mobilizing the military on the basis of having a, quote, vaccine.
Apparently, the military is going to be mobilized to make sure people get it very, very rapidly.
Indeed, there's a tremendous force being gathered to do so.
And the pretext is you have to be mobilized and ready to distribute this vaccine.
Why would the military be needed to distribute a vaccine?
Particularly a vaccine, as we've discussed many times on this show, that has little likelihood of at least complete success, if any success, given the problems with developing successful vaccines for coronavirus, the issues with vaccines and the swine flu quote-unquote epidemic.
This has been tried before.
What's been pushed on President Trump is the same thing that was pushed on President Ford in 1976.
In the name of a scary, scary pandemic that, by the way, they greatly exaggerated the risk from, they got millions of Americans to rush in and get a quote-unquote vaccine to it.
It turned out the vaccine caused far more harm in that case than the pandemic ever did.
It ended up killing people.
It ended up causing severe neurological damage.
And back when 60 Minutes was an honest, independent network, It actually broadcasts a detailed story about what happened, about how the CDC made great, severe, egregious errors in their rush for a vaccine to another kind of influenza-type virus.
In that case, the swine flu.
And it led to a disaster and a debacle.
And now they're asking President Trump to compound that by using a Waco-style remedy of sending in military equipment and personnel.
How does that sound?
How did that work out in Waco?
When the idea was let's rush things, let's get things done, let's send in the most egregious use of force we possibly could.
It ended up being a lot of kids ended up being burnt to death and dead.
So you don't have to watch the Waco Netflix series to have known that history by the various documentaries that have been made and as well as the evidence presented over the last two decades.
So here we are with a similar proposal, a kind of comparable proposal, that the president use the military against U.S.
citizens to make sure they get quote-unquote vaccinated for a vaccine that is unlikely to be successful in this short term and has a history of problematic issues in this particular context.
They want him to repeat the egregious mistake of Gerald Ford, who was also defeated for his re-election in 1976.
A good quick way to lose re-election would be to use those kind of tactics and techniques, Waco-style tactics and techniques, in addressing a vaccine.
This is part of the mindset that came from the Center for Pandemic.
Preparation, CEPI I believe was the acronym, by Bill Gates funded group back in the fall where they were preparing for quote-unquote a coronavirus pandemic before one had even broken out and they had military officials locked in in this open discussion in this experiment talking about well we have to treat it like a war.
Clearly that's the kind of mindset that Bill Gates may have embraced but it's not one that our civil liberties or legal history would embrace.
It's not one that any smart politician would embrace.
And yet that is precisely what is being pushed to the President tonight.
And he is disclosing it as if it is on a go-forward basis.
People need to reach out and remind the President that is not what he got elected to do, to weaponize the U.S.
military against U.S.
citizens for a questionable vaccine that is being rushed to the marketplace for a virus that is causing nowhere near the harm that they said would take place.
Indeed, in that context, let's look at our coronavirus daily update, COVID-19 daily update.
And if we look at chart number seven, we again see that the number of people tested and the number of people who have it is now under 1%.
So the rate continues to decline in terms of the percentage of people being tested and what the outcomes are.
Basically, the percentage of people who have it has been pretty consistent with just the percentage of who's being tested, except the number of people who have it amongst those being tested continues to go down and down.
Indeed, if we look at the death rate of COVID-19, we see a similar result in chart number 8.
And we see again, it continued, as was predicted, it would go up early, then it would flatline, then it would decline, and that's all it continues to do.
It is now getting into the 1-2% range of daily growth rate of deaths from COVID-19.
This is simply not the threat they said it was.
Definitely not the kind of threat that could ever warrant or justify the use of the U.S. military on domestic soil for the purposes of forcing people to get vaccines.
Or for the purpose of quote-unquote distributing vaccines.
Just a bad idea altogether.
Do we really want to see the National Guard outside nursing homes making sure people get their vaccines outside of schools, outside of neighborhoods?
This is just not a good idea by any measurement.
Indeed, the close signs, of course, continue to pop up everywhere, including in Milwaukee, as businesses are now getting in many cases permanently closed.
In large part because we had another 3 million people file new unemployment claims just this week, bringing the total number to almost 37 million people who have filed for unemployment in just the past two months.
That is a record that completely wipes out all prior records.
There's nothing like this that has ever happened in American history.
Even the Great Depression did not have this effect in this kind of timeframe.
Businesses closing, people losing their jobs, and people are talking about this.
And the problem is the lockdown.
The problem is not the pandemic itself.
The pandemic didn't cause this, the lockdown did.
And the lockdowns continue to.
And so unless meaningful remedy is taken by reopening America, not by sending the military on the streets, Then the president faces difficult re-election prospects, but also the country faces difficulty both restarting the economy and restoring our civil liberties.
A further detailed study was issued today that was published in The Lancet, a medical publication that publishes medical articles.
It gives early estimates of the indirect effects of the pandemic.
Now what they really mean there is the effects of the shutdown.
They just don't want to say it that way on maternal and child mortality in low income and middle income countries.
And it goes through the number of people who are likely to die or suffer debilitating disabling conditions because they are not getting adequate medical treatment, because they're not getting adequate food supplies, because they are no longer part of a global economy that is effectively shutting down.
And the net effect of the lack of access to medical care and the lack of a meaningful economy in large parts of the low-income countries around the world is leading to a devastation of death that will far, far, far exceed what anything the pandemic could have ever even thought about doing.
And often doing it to the most vulnerable, young mothers and young children.
Indeed, if we look at it from the currency markets and look at the economic impact that continues to show up in those countries, we can look at chart number one.
And chart number one is what's happening to various currencies, such as in Brazil, such as in South Africa, such as in Mexico, and compared to the U.S.
dollar.
And what's happening is they're rapidly losing value.
They're losing value at a level that they never have before.
That's the number of dollars you have to have in their currency just to meet the U.S.
currency.
It's doubling almost overnight.
The same thing we see for other currencies of the South African currency.
We see a similar crazy upward chart.
If we look at the Mexican peso currency chart, chart three, Look at that chart.
That's a chart that everything's going fine, you know, has had moments of issues, but now it's just skyrocketing in its dramatic decline of value against the U.S.
dollar.
This is going to destroy poor economies around the world.
And what do you think happens when Mexico or Brazil or South Africa's economies completely tank?
Mexico is one of the better economies in Central America.
Brazil is one of the better economies in South America.
South Africa is one of the better economies in Africa.
So if the leading places in those parts of the world completely tank, as is already happening in their currency markets just in the last 30 days, then imagine what happens to the rest of the countries in those respective continents.
And what happens after that?
Does that not lead to more massive immigration problems?
Does that not lead to more destabilization of those countries politically?
Does that not lead, in the case of Mexico, to the cartels having more power than they could ever imagine?
What if the only secure form of employment or income, or U.S.
dollars, in a place like Mexico comes disproportionately just from drug cartels?
What does that world look like?
What if drug cartels are effectively the narco capital governors of Mexico?
What happens in Brazil if a country of that size completely collapse between its commodity problems with commodity prices tanking and now its currency also tanking?
What happens there?
What happens then?
The same in South Africa.
Chart number four is a similar detailing the exchange rate issues that are happening around the world in emerging markets and emerging countries.
And the Brazilian dollar, if you look at it, you know, might be worth pennies on the dollar if things keep going in the same path and in the same direction.
Indeed, if we look at chart number nine, we see the various volatility that is taking place and other currencies that are just tanking off the charts and going down in a way that will be a disaster for large parts of the world.
That is why, even in the New York Times admitted, published an opinion piece today about how to reopen America safely.
And in it, they basically, this piece admits that most of the assumptions behind why the shutdown was put in place in the first place can no longer be justified.
Not only because the pandemic is not the kind of threat to the broad scale of the population that it was described as.
Increasingly, the evidence shows that if you're under 50 and healthy, your risk from the virus is less than your risk from the flu.
But particularly for young people, people under 25, your chance of dying is higher from getting struck by lightning than it is of dying from this virus for people under 25.
So are we going to just lock down all of our civil society, shut down all our schools and keep people inside anytime there's a thunderstorm now?
That's the logic of what is taking place.
That is the logic of what is transpiring.
And it is causing massive economic harm around the world.
It is causing massive humanitarian catastrophes around the world.
And the only supposed suggestion is having the military deliver vaccines in the United States.
This reminds me of an issue we'll be discussing today and also with our one of our two guests tonight with Cassandra Fairbanks, which is a popular Netflix series has gone back into the history of what happened back in 1993 here in Texas.
As I come to work each day, I see the sign that reminds me of it, the little green sign that says that's the way to Waco.
And if you look at what happened in Waco, it was a time when there was a mindset amongst people with guns that they could do whatever they wanted.
They wanted to be able to control.
They wanted to be able to show their authority, to show their power.
And so they acted consistently in egregious ways that led to the foreseeable death, given what their policies and procedures were in that case.
Of dozens of young children, of infants, of mothers, of elderly people burned alive.
Some shot by various individuals that have yet to be named related to what happened in Waco.
There were a lot of lies that took place afterwards.
Evidence went missing.
Evidence went hidden.
There were a lot of excuses from the political class.
There were judges issuing wayward opinions in order to punish the victims of what took place rather than punish the culprits of what took place.
So we see a lot of the same signs of the same mindset.
that we now see from mayors and governors that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Consequences be damned.
In the same context, we're seeing that mindset infect to such a degree that now political advice is going to the president, recommending that he use the military to push vaccines on the American public, despite the known risks of those vaccines, given the prior history of the swine flu of 1976 despite the known risks of those vaccines, given the prior history of the swine flu of 1976 and the disaster that occurred And there at least they didn't send the military into the streets to make sure people were vaccinated.
They induced people through public propaganda to participate and they had to file suit later to seek remedy and of course not long after that Congress passed special laws to make sure those kind of suits could never happen again by precluding the ability of suing vaccine makers and distributors for illegal activities conducted in their vaccine creation or distribution or marketing.
And yet, that's what's going to happen and repeat again?
What happened in Waco is they decided to rush the time clock for taking action.
And what did that lead to?
That's what led to the deaths.
Indeed, one of the facts that's often left out of the Waco stories, if you watch the institutional press and you watch the media narrative, the institutional narrative was a crazy guy with a religious sect Shot a bunch of ATF officers, wounded a bunch, killed several, and then refused to come out, and then burned everybody alive when they were trying to get people out.
That was the effect of institutional narrative.
Much of the evidence would not end up substantiating that, and the best evidence of that is one of the key components that's often left out, omitted from the institutional narrative, even if you watch it or observe it today.
Eleven people survived, nine people survived, and there were two others that were connected.
They were ultimately put on trial in Texas on whether or not they were the ones that were responsible for the deaths of the ATF officers.
Notably, a Texas jury completely acquitted them of all conspiracy charges, completely acquitted the other Davidians from Waco of all murder charges.
Indeed, there were several who were acquitted of every charge, including minor gun charges.
The judge ended up trying to sort of cover for that by issuing a crazy sentence to several of the people that were involved, convicted of lesser gun-related issues.
The U.S.
Supreme Court would reverse that, given how bad the decision was by the judge.
And yet, that is a critical fact.
As you can find in the New York Times, 11 in Texas said, are acquitted of key charges.
This is part of when a jury saw all of the evidence, the only time it really faced a meaningful jury trial about Waco, something that didn't happen in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, something that did not happen in many of the other controversial death cases over the past 40 or 50 years, what did not something that did not happen in many of the other controversial death cases over the past 40 or 50 years, what did not happen in Martin Luther King's case as well until there was a jury trial about whether there was a conspiracy to
So when a jury got to evaluate the actual evidence from both sides with the government having all of the advantages with having a judge that was strongly on their side as revealed by his subsequent actions and related in that case.
The jury determined that, in fact, the government's narrative was not true.
That, in fact, none of these people had committed murder.
None of these people had conspired to commit murder.
Indeed, if you go back into Memories Lane, you look at what the whole history of that case was and is, you'll find evidence of government corruption, you'll find evidence that went missing, videotapes that vanished, crime scenes that were destroyed, records that disappeared.
Consistently.
Indeed Janet Reno would only admit the then Attorney General six years after the fact that yes indeed they had sent in pyrotechnic projectiles into the building after denying it for a long time period.
There's evidence out there from various surveillance planes that were was taking x-ray film of what was taking place showing in fact worse actions by individuals.
One of the main snipers there who other snipers said that he thought had fired shots into the Waco building wasn't the same sniper who was left not only left employed but put into a position of command at Waco was the sniper who was at Ruby Ridge who famously shot Randy Weaver's wife while she was holding a 10-month-old girl.
That's the kind of people who were there.
That was the kind of mindset that infected him.
And we saw the institutional powers that be, both in the press and in the political arena, go to great lengths to cover what they did.
So much so, that much of the truth was ultimately suppressed, some of it never to be discovered again, others to remain only in certain places in the public sphere and not within the gated institutional narrative permitted.
In the same context, we're seeing extraordinary actions that appear to be intended to cover up government corruption in the Spygate and General Flynn case.
The judge in that case has issued an amici order, which is by itself extraordinary and unusual, to ask another lawyer, an ex-judge, to come in and argue against what the government and the defense agree is the proper and just outcome of the case.
What is extraordinary about it is how it unfolded.
First you have the announcement from the Department of Justice that General Flynn was wrongfully prosecuted and that his charges should be dismissed within days.
Somehow Barack Obama's conversation gets leaked and somehow it was taped in which you can hear his own voice and where he is rallying his people to his side saying that this is very dangerous for the rule of law to allow this to occur or to allow this to happen.
A few days later, an ex-judge from New York, who is associated with Sally Yates now, one of the culprits involved in Spygate, he writes an opinion piece in the Washington Post, basically giving a roadmap to what he thinks Judge Sullivan should do, that Judge Sullivan should challenge it and contest it, and he could appoint an independent lawyer to do so.
Well, what does Judge Sullivan do?
Judge Sullivan hires that lawyer, that ex-judge, who wrote that opinion piece for precisely what the ex-judge recommended.
Remember that the next time you hear someone say that judges don't pay attention to the court of public opinion, judges don't pay attention to what is being said in the press.
Nonsense.
They pay great attention to it because they often see their jobs and their duties and their tasks.
As enforcement of certain institutional objectives that align with their own institutional agenda, sometimes ideological agenda.
In this case, Judge Sullivan required this quote-unquote amici, this independent lawyer who's not really independent at all but is conflicted given his involvement with Sally Yates, given his ideological opinions as well, to write an amici as to why he can do things that the DC Circuit has made clear he cannot do.
A judge cannot refuse a government motion to dismiss a prosecution unless the government is trying to abuse the rights of the defendant.
Unless that is occurring, they do not have broad miscarriage of justice authority to refuse the prosecution's request to dismiss and to, in turn, usurp the executive branch's authorities and prerogatives in that regard.
And so having him write about that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
But that's why Judge Sullivan likely added a second provision, asking that this ex-judge come in and explain why he shouldn't issue an order to show cause to hold General Flynn in contempt for supposed perjury.
What this is an attempt to do, and this is why it is so dangerous for civil rights and civil liberties in the country.
It's the kind of justice we saw in the Waco case, covering up evidence, blaming the victim for what the other side did in certain contexts in the legal arena.
We're seeing it replicated and repeated in aspects of the General Flynn case.
Because what the goal here, the long-term institutional effect, is that if you are a defendant, who may have issued a confession that you later realized was coerced and untrue, or you may have pled to something you didn't do because you were being coerced or gaslit to do so.
You are now told if you ever challenge that, if you ever contest that, if you ever expose government misconduct, prosecutorial malfeasance, law enforcement, abuse of power, to such a degree that even the government concedes you never should have been prosecuted and demand dismissal.
If you ever even think about doing that, the judicial system will usurp the executive, and charge you with perjury, charge you with obstruction, come up with something else they can charge you with.
The threat is you better never talk about government misconduct.
You better never talk about police abuse.
You better never challenge anything that happened or we'll use the very means by which they coerced you to coerce you again into not challenging or contesting malfeasance or misconduct.
That's why even Professor Turley found it a shocking action by Judge Sullivan.
It reflects the fact that Judge Sullivan cannot be trusted any more than Judge Jackson to do fairness and justice in these politicized cases.
Consequently, it puts pressure on the President.
Rather than looking at using the military to send vaccines out or to vaccinate people, what he should be doing is focusing on what Judge Sullivan and what these other judges have done and issue full, complete pardons today to Roger Stone and General Flynn so that this nonsense does not continue unabated.
In the Waco case, they had to wait years for development of critical facts.
They had to wait years for the US Supreme Court to overturn the wrongful wayward sentences that were issued to several people there in that context of that case.
Hopefully, we do not have to wait that long for justice again.
And what we don't need is militarized vaccines.
What we do need is justice in the civil justice system and the criminal justice system for innocent people like General Flint.
In that same context, it's useful that the judge in Judge Sullivan completely ignored a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued just days ago, which condemned courts for doing what?
For trying to manipulate cases by assigning a meek eye, quote-unquote, a meek eye, to the case to manufacture a case that doesn't exist, in fact, in front of them with the actual parties to the case.
They talked about how bad it was.
It was the case of United States versus Sinning Smith.
And they go into detail as to why it's bad.
And by the way, this was a unanimous decision.
All of the liberal justices agreed.
Justice Ginsburg authored the opinion, talking about, in our adversarial system of adjudication, We follow the principle of party presentation.
In criminal cases, departures from party presentation principle should only occur to protect a pro se litigant's rights, not the government's role.
Indeed, courts are essentially passive instruments of government and are to reflect the party presentation principle.
Indeed, as they go on further, they go into detail about how this did not happen in that particular case, about why it is wrong and what happened was completely erroneous.
Indeed, they said no extraordinary circumstances, only extraordinary circumstances should justify a MECAI.
They said no extraordinary circumstances justified the court's takeover of the appeal.
What they did instead was basically co-opt the arguments to make the arguments they wanted.
They called it a radical transformation of the case that goes well beyond the pale.
Well, that case pales in comparison to the General Flynn case.
This is an unprecedented, unparalleled exertion of judicial authority that does not have founding in either the law or our principled precedent.
And that is why and how we got there today.
In this context, we're going to be going back on a little bit of memory lane to review what happened in the Waco case, what created it, how the mindset infected what took place there.
If we go back and just give you the basic thumbnail version of the facts, what happened is you had a group of Seventh-day Adventists who had their own particular form of Seventh-day Adventist religion, who had formed over many decades in Waco, Texas, Who sort of the religious parishioner role was taken over or inherited by David Koresh.
It had a large number of people including a large number of people of various races and various national origins including people from the England in particular.
The allegation of the ATF put into a search warrant that later ended up having evidence of having exaggerated information in it was solely that these individuals had effectively had some guns for their self-protection and that they believed that some of those guns were not there legally.
So they issue a search warrant for the purposes of getting it.
Now they knew from surveillance that they could have actually picked up David Koresh when he was going back and forth to Walmart.
They could have picked him up when he was out on the daily jog.
They chose not to.
Instead, simply on the hunch that there might be some weapons there that might not be legal, they decided to do a 100-man raid.
Armed raid on the property.
And they didn't do the old search warrant of going up, knocking on the door, anything like that.
Instead, they had helicopters there, which ultimately there's evidence that they were firing from those helicopters.
Instead, they just rushed up to the property.
A bunch of people jumped off with guns and started going right towards the front door.
Their claim was that then they were fired upon, which there still would have been a self-defense argument under those circumstances, but the evidence and the conclusions of the jury in Texas was that, in fact, it was the ATF who initiated the firing upon.
They came in to make a point about what they could do, when they could do it, where they could do it, and how they could do it.
They knew that they were raiding a large place that had many women, many children, many elderly people in it.
They took no protective precautions at all.
They made no diplomatic efforts to find a resolution before making that raid.
Their only evidence of purported criminality was maybe there's an illegal gun there.
There was no evidence of these people threatening anyone else in any meaningful manner, any evidence of criminal history of that kind or category.
And so instead they raided and unfortunately for them there were some people in there that knew how to defend themselves and they ultimately ran out of ammunition and then backed off.
And when they said hey we'll back off there was no further shooting by the people inside the Branch Davidian facility at Mount Carmel.
So they back off and then what does the government do?
Come up with some reasonable resolution?
No.
For the next 51 days they will lay siege to the property there.
People that had left will be found dead on the side of the road without explanation as to how that happened.
They'll line up snipers at three different locations.
They'll tell them early on in the negotiation process that anybody who comes out will not want to be coming out and will experience what will happen, inference being that they're going to be shot killed.
They knew, because they had FBI bugging inside the building, that this was a group of people who had apocalyptic worries about a Babylonian government causing this kind of harm to them, capitalized on that, and then ultimately raided the building with tanks, causing ultimately a fire that burned most of them alive.
Well, there's more evidence they were being shot at from three different locations during the whole raid, and then the government covered it up.
We'll be talking about that and other issues next, including the Julian Assange case with Cassandra Fairbanks after the break.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
A trip down memory lane in the Waco case involves two documentaries that were done, including Waco Rules of Engagement and Waco New Revelations.
In those documentaries, they got a wide range of people to talk to them.
This included FBI officers, forensic officers who were there at the scene, who ultimately became whistleblowers, CIA officers, high-ranking military officials, and others who had experience, including Texas Rangers and local sheriffs, either with the Branch Davidians or issues related to the case.
They often challenged and contested the institutional government narrative on the case.
To give just one illustration of the evidence that went missing, there was a videotape of what happened at the initial part of the raid.
That videotape extraordinarily disappeared and vanished from government possession.
It wouldn't be the last piece of evidence to disappear.
When the fire started to consume the compound, the fire police, the fire station, the fire folks came up, the firemen, with their fire trucks, and they were blocked from being able to stop the fire from spreading and killing people by the FBI director himself.
His pretext was, well, he was worried they might get shot by apparently people who were burning alive.
And so that led, after everything burned down, that effectively the act of the fire consuming the property helped destroy a wide range of evidence that might have implicated the FBI or the ATF or other officials.
In addition, there was evidence of potential military involvement being requested by someone within the White House.
It's not known.
Vince Foster had a role connected to Waco, but he ultimately died before he could ever be an effective witness.
So the, and because of the nature of the fire burning through the property, the second thing they did after that, aside from first of all creating events that could lead to a fire, secondly stopping the fire trucks from being able to put the fire out, the third thing they did is they decided to treat the place as a biohazard facility, as a biohazard location.
That changed the rules of evidence.
So consequently they did nothing to secure the scene for the purposes of gathering adequate evidence.
They even did things like bleach down Before Hillary Clinton learned to use a different form of bleach bit, they used physical bleach to actually effectively make it impossible to go through the bodies and figure out how they may have died.
There was evidence that many had been shot.
And there was contentions of, well, what happened?
Who shot them?
The official government version would be, and the official institutional narrative would be, well, they were shot by the, they either shot themselves or other people within the compound shot them.
Well, if that was the case, then evidence should have been preserved to be able to look at the forensic records.
All of that was wiped out by treating it as a, by letting the fire consume the property, and then treating it as a biohazard facility, and then even doing things like bleaching bodies.
They made it impossible for any of the forensic evidence to be meaningfully gathered.
In the same time frame, in the same process, it would only be years later that they would admit other evidence went missing or was mislabeled.
For example, it turned out they had been using flash grenades.
Flash grenades, of course, can put off a fire when you've already put in massive amounts of tear gas into a facility or into a home or location, especially when you've used the tanks to blow holes into the buildings in certain places that created what one expert called a pot stove effect that made it such that flames would devour the entire compound.
And then you add to that, they chose to do the raid on one of the most, on one of the windiest days in that part of Texas, so that it could rip through and have a hurricane of fire effect, in terms of destroying people, lives, and evidence.
The evidence continues to add and gather in that regard.
Let's just look at one of the video clips from this.
Let's take a look at video clip number one.
The FAA didn't say, don't shoot, don't shoot.
The agents were out of ammunition.
They could have killed nearly every ATF agent out there the day of the raid had they kept shooting.
But when they said they would leave their property, they quit shooting.
You got to argue with me, you come and argue with me.
You come pointing guns in the direction of my wives and my kids, dammit, I'll meet you at the door any time.
And I'm sorry some of you guys got shot.
But, uh, hey, God will have to sort that out with me.
One of the key issues throughout the whole case, the only reason to justify, in the government's view, this massive siege and then this massive raid with tanks on this property with a lot of kids and women and elderly people in it, was the deaths of the ATF officers from the original raid.
Their entire contention was that the folks there at the compound had set up an ambush for them, somehow knew they were coming purportedly and had set up an ambush to somehow make it effective.
This was the ATF being unwilling to admit they had acted Badly, that they had acted incorrectly, that they had acted wrongly, and that the deaths that took place that day were on them and their strategies and tactics that they employed, given it was disproportionate and disparate to the circumstances present.
They even also made misrep- they claimed that no shots came out of helicopters when forensic evidence from looking at the videotape of the building strongly suggested that had to have been the case that day.
So the, and it was the videotape of that initial siege that the ATF had in its custody, that magically just vanishes conveniently to never be found again.
This sort of pattern of destroying exculpatory evidence, misleading other forms of evidence, would be a pattern throughout the case.
Indeed, as the Texas Sheriff there talks about, he said, if it had been the intention of an ambush, if it had been the intention of them to cause harm to the ATF, then why didn't they actually just take them out when they had the opportunity?
Why did they allow them to retreat with ease?
Why didn't they fire on them in mass when they were coming up in the first place?
So that so showed and suggested that there was a history that was problematic.
Someone who has looked at this along with other cases of unique justice in America is Cassandra Fairbanks.
You can find her at Twitter at Cassandra Rules.
She writes for both Gateway Pundit and District Herald and you can find her commentary there as well.
Cassandra, glad you could be with us.
Hey, thank you for having me.
Sorry I had some technical difficulties.
No problem.
We will not attribute it to any form of conspiracy or anything else for the time being.
Just the nature of this pandemic.
You reviewed the Waco case.
You actually interviewed people connected to it.
How much does the new Netflix series really accurately, or now on Netflix, capture what took place there?
It's extremely accurate.
They took things that are word for word from the court filings.
It's incredible.
It's actually the best representation of Waco that I've ever seen.
It's based on the books both by Gary Nosner, who is the FBI negotiator, and David Thibodeau, who was one of the people who made it out of the fires on that fateful day.
So they combined both of these books when they were making it And both of the men were actually consultants on the show.
And so they both, I interviewed both of them and they disagreed about certain aspects of it.
And Thibodeau explained to me that they had to put a bunch of things that didn't actually happen to him onto his character so that they could minimize how many people they were showcasing in it.
But other than that, he said it was pretty on point.
And same with Gary Nosner.
His only gripe was that he thought that they portrayed Koresh a little bit too sympathetically.
And when was the first time you found out about Waco or got interested in looking at it?
Oh goodness.
I will sound extremely old if I talk about that, but I think I first got interested when I was maybe 13.
I think I read like a National Enquirer or something that my grandmother had at her house, and I was just completely enthralled by it.
And I've been reading about it pretty much ever since.
Which is a long time.
And were you surprised or shocked?
Like for a lot of people, what took place at Waco was shocking to Americans on a scale of the Kennedy or the King assassinations.
In other words, things they thought could never happen here did.
What was your reaction to it and what triggered your interest in it?
I was horrified.
The things that they did to the Branch Davidians would be considered a war crime if they did it to terrorists.
And they did it to American citizens.
American citizens who were within their rights to practice their religion.
I mean, David Koresh did marry a 14-year-old girl, but that was legal at the time in Texas.
So people who have a problem with that have a problem with, you know, the state law in Texas at the time.
So on a On a justification level, I don't think that Janet Reno or the FBI agents who pursued it were in the right at all.
I mean, it was, they blew up innocent women and children and babies and unborn babies to save children from hypothetical abuse that they didn't even know existed.
And it was all a show to make up for Ruby Ridge, so.
What do you think are some of the most common misunderstandings or myths about Waco in terms of the government narrative?
The narrative that I see the most, because I tweet about Waco a lot, the thing I see the most is that he was raping babies and very small children, which is not the case.
He had married the little sister of his first wife, and a lot of people believe that it was her who pushed for that.
That's a whole other story.
It's inexcusable that he did that.
But again, it was legal at the time and he wasn't molesting small children.
He wasn't accused of that.
I've seen people say that he was racist, but a lot of the people there were people of color.
A lot of people weren't even American citizens.
So there's quite a lot.
Um, obviously there's contention about whether or not, um, CRESH started the fires or if the government started the fires.
What are you, from looking at the case, what are your thoughts on that?
Because that is, I mean the government narrative I found extraordinary of saying that somehow they had nothing to do with the fires being started given the circumstances.
Could you discuss, but that is the biggest narrative out there, was that that, especially at the time period, was that they burned themselves up.
From your review of the case and talking to people, what's your conclusion?
Well Thibodeau maintains that they did not start the fires and I find him to be a very credible and very He's an honest man.
I've talked to him a lot, not even just about Waco, about all kinds of things.
And I find him to be a very credible person.
But I think that the Waco miniseries actually had the best take on this.
While we may never know who exactly started the fires, we do know that tear gas and explosives cause fires.
And we've seen it over and over again with FBI raids of various, you know, the MOVE bombing and several other cases.
And they didn't even have a fire truck there.
They let those people burn to death doing something that they knew was a fire risk.
So even if for some reason, Paresh, who had never implied that he would do any such thing, did start the fire.
They should have been prepared to put it out because they knew what they were doing was flammable and that it could cause an explosion and that there were babies in there.
And they didn't.
So, even if their story is true, which I personally don't believe, they were still reckless and irresponsible and it was their fault.
That's my take on it.
And what does Thibodeau think now, having lived through it, particularly about the American legal system and political system and how it responded to everything that took place?
Um, I mean, he's been disappointed and all the survivors actually have been calling for an apology from the government for 28 years.
Um, and they've never got it and I don't think they ever will get it.
So, um, how can you believe in a just government and apologize for killing all, you know, 25 children?
I think it was that were in there.
It's yeah.
I don't see how you could possibly have faith in the government.
And in that capacity, I mean, a lot of what happened at Waco led to people second-guessing how the government handled things, second-guessing how even agencies like the FBI, agencies like the ATF, agencies that had previously been held in high esteem, the Attorney General's Office, Congress's incapacity to deal with it, the courts issuing crazy sentences that got reversed by the Supreme Court, not being able to get a meaningful civil jury trial that was meaningfully done.
In a binding way, with evidence being properly included.
It woke a lot of people at the time to that.
And then Oklahoma City sort of reversed the narrative publicly.
And now we're seeing some of the same tactics and techniques employed in the legal system.
Whether we're talking about General Flynn's case, Roger Stone's case, or the Julian Assange case.
Though Assange's case may be the most parallel to it.
What is the latest update on Julian Assange's case in the UK and where is he currently?
Well, he's still in Belmarsh prison, which is terrifying because they have a coronavirus outbreak there and his lungs have been shot since 2013.
You know, he was in the Ecuadorian embassy for a very long time and from being in these tight dusty rooms, it completely destroyed his lungs.
So he's in big trouble if he catches it and they're not doing very much to, you know, help the situation.
They've released a lot of other prisoners with like ankle bracelets and things like that.
They're not doing it for Julian.
His trial did get postponed until September 7th though.
So his extradition trial will not be until then, which is actually a huge win because he wasn't being allowed to meet with his lawyers.
And his lawyers argued that if he Skyped into court, which is what they were talking about doing, then they wouldn't be able to speak to him during the hearing without everyone hearing what they're saying, which obviously wouldn't be a fair legal representation at all.
So, yeah, he's kind of in limbo until September 7th.
And we're hoping that he doesn't get Corona.
What is one of the biggest myths about Julian Assange?
In the same case that there was sort of a media campaign against Koresh and everybody there to justify the extreme government actions and behavior rather than as a cover-up is what a lot of people thought what they were doing was.
In the same context, what are some of the biggest myths that have been spread about Julian Assange and related to his case?
Well, it's like they have the same playbook every time, right?
They've accused him of rape and This is not true.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that he was found guilty of rape or that he had been charged with rape.
He was never even charged.
There was an investigation.
Swedish law is very different than ours.
So while he was having sex with a woman, a condom broke.
And apparently he kept having sex with her and they decided that that was rape, even though the sex was consensual.
There were two women who accused him.
They knew each other.
There was a big jealousy and lover's quarrel going on about the fact that he had slept with them both.
And the government kind of preyed on that, and they used it to portray him as this evil rapist villain, which is not the case.
And Women Against Rape, a feminist organization, has even come out and said that this does terrible harm to the word rape by accusing him of rape when it wasn't.
So that's one of the big ones.
And he was never charged.
The investigation has been dropped.
But no matter what, every time you tweet about Julian, you have somebody, probably a paid government troll, in here mentioned saying that he's a rapist.
Not true.
Same thing that they do to everybody that they need to make into a villain, really.
The other aspect that struck me as a parallel is in the Waco case, they tried to portray these folks as dangerous, wanting to cause conflict, wanting to use their guns to hurt other people, when prior to the ATF raid, there was no evidence of that.
Did you see, in going through the whole Waco file, was there any evidence of them actually trying to go out and shoot and kill other people, trying to cause harm, trying to create an insurrection, anything like that?
Oh, absolutely not.
They were selling weapons and shirts and like patches and stickers and stuff at gun shows.
They weren't planning to attack anybody.
I don't even think they were ever accused of that.
They weren't a violent people.
They just wanted to be left alone.
And in the same context, currently there's this sort of allegation that's circulating that I thought had been discredited years before.
But we're seeing it again involving Julian Assange's case that he put out leaks that deliberately led to the deaths of any particular individual, but particularly sources and American military officials.
What can you say to that?
Well, this is a little bit complicated because Julian was even the one who originally leaked The unredacted Manning files, a Guardian reporter wrote a book about the files and he put the password to download the full file in his book.
So it got out on the internet.
If you go to YouTube and type in Julian Assange phone call to Hillary Clinton, the phone call will come up.
There's a video of him calling the State Department frantically being like, you guys have a huge problem.
This is getting leaked.
It's not us leaking it.
And he tried to warn them.
They blew him off.
And so there's that aspect of it.
But then there's also the fact that the Pentagon testified during the Manning trial that nobody was killed because of the leaks.
They repeated that again during the extradition trial.
There's no evidence that anybody even had to be moved because of leaks.
This is a smear that I believe was started by John McCain.
And it's persisted ever since.
They'll say things like he got American patriots killed and stuff.
But there's never been evidence of that.
During the Manning trial, they were trying to put Manning away as long as possible, right?
They had no reason to lie and say that nobody got hurt or that nobody even had to be moved.
But that's what they said.
And they said it again during the extradition trial.
And so any politicians that are claiming he got people killed are lying.
And can you give sort of a summation for those people who may not have followed Julian Assange in detail.
You have someone who's exposed some of the worst government misconduct ever.
I mean like in the Waco case they ended up putting out flags saying we understand what happened to Rodney King now that it happened just a year before.
They put out flags saying we want the press there.
They were trying to get media access.
They were trying to expose that what the government had done to them was wrong.
And there's many people who believe the government's disparate response was to cover up that initial abuse rather than to deal with it honestly.
In the same context, can you talk about the critical journalistic role Julian Assange has played in getting essential information about government misconduct out to the world?
And that may be why he's being targeted now.
Yeah, absolutely.
And they did the same thing with him, you know?
He got placed under a gag order.
The last year that he was in the embassy, they were smearing him.
They were saying that he was rubbing feces on the wall and all these crazy things, which I've spoke to him about, and it's not true.
And I've seen the inside of the embassy.
I went and visited there several times.
It was very clean.
He's a very orderly person.
But they had gagged him and said that they would throw him out of the embassy if he spoke to the press or tweeted or used the internet.
And so he couldn't even defend himself.
It was the same thing that happened with Waco.
They silenced them.
And so he had this huge smear campaign against him and there was nothing that he could do about it.
It's a shame. - So it ends up being a parallel campaign.
And can you talk about some of the motivation in the sense of, my understanding with Julian Assange and Wikileaks is, unlike almost everyone else in media, they've never reported something that they had to retract, never released anything that turned out inaccurate, and they have exposed some of the greatest government scandals in the last 20 years.
Can you talk about that?
Yeah, I think it's actually kind of heartbreaking that the Trump administration are going after him for this because Julian has spent the last over 10 years fighting the same exact people who have been attacking Trump.
It's the same deep state, the same malicious actors.
The people that Julian has been working so hard to expose are the people who were behind this Michael Flynn stuff.
It's the same people who have been behind Russiagate and all these terrible campaigns that have been, you know, marring the Trump administration.
They have the same enemies and they've been fighting the same fight against You know, against this deep state and the media that's controlled by the Democratic Party.
I always say that if Trump wanted to really stick it to the deep state and the fake news, he would pardon Julian and throw him a parade.
That would definitely be eventful.
In that context, if Julian Assange is in fact extradited to the United States, there's talk that he'll be tried in the Northern District of Virginia, where there's been other peculiar proceedings involving whistleblowers.
I know you've talked to some of those and reviewed those cases.
Could you describe what kind of justice system would look like if he were to face that in the United States?
Well, this particular judge, she requests every national security case.
She presided over the John Kiriakou case.
John Kiriakou, of course, was a whistleblower.
He was the only person to go to prison for the torture program because he blew the whistle on it.
When his trial was going on, he wasn't allowed to present any evidence.
That was classified.
She refused to make any exceptions.
And so he couldn't form a proper defense because all of the material that he would have needed to defend himself was classified.
And that's going to be the same thing that they do to Julian and they're going to railroad him.
There's no chance he'll have a fair trial there.
Yeah, that is definitely what the history would look like.
It would be what Judge Sullivan is doing to General Flynn and what Judge Jackson did to Roger Stone look like the kind of an honorary trial.
It's more like a trial out of the film Idiocracy than it is a trial out of anything that reflects American history.
When we come back with Cassandra, we'll ask her what she thinks the president should do next, both as to those cases, General Flynn and Roger Stone, and as to whether he should embrace another recent idea.
Thank you.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
We're here with Cassandra Fairbanks.
You can find her online.
District Herald, where she writes, as well as Gateway Pundit.
And you can find her on Twitter, where she always has fun, ongoing Twitter commentary of a wide range of categories and topics, at Cassandra Rules.
Cassandra, the other thing that was being mentioned today in this sort of era, we're seeing the railroading of General Flynn, the railroading of Roger Stone, we're seeing the attempted railroading of Julian Assange, we've seen a script or sequel of this before, a prequel to it, and what happened in Waco across the board, both in the PR story, political story, what happened in the legal system that made a mockery out of civil justice that ultimately ended up covering up the deaths of a bunch of kids and old folks.
In that context, Now there's discussion that has been put out by the president that the military has pitched that apparently he's thinking about entertaining from the same people who have caused such harm to people around the world in terms of their deep state policies and priorities that maybe the military should be sent out to vaccinate everybody.
Any thoughts about whether that's a good idea for the president to follow up on?
I think that idea is absolutely terrifying.
I'm not personally Super into the VAX debate.
I don't have a very strong stance on this, but I do have a strong stance about the military coming to inject me with anything.
Not happening.
It's just not a thing that I would ever Even consider allowing for me or my daughter.
And I can't imagine that there are a lot of people who would welcome it with open arms.
Exactly.
Especially in the sense that the military, one of the big problems with Waco was that using militaristic tactics, there's some suggestion of military involvement from the records that were there.
And at least the employment of military techniques I think Janet Reno compared a tank raiding a house to renting a car.
Putting that point aside, that does not lead to a de-escalation of conflict and it rarely reaches civil resolution.
What's your understanding of what the role of either military tactics, military equipment, or military personnel was in Waco and how that turned out for everybody?
Well, they certainly used military tactics and weapons.
I mean, the whole thing was a military operation.
They waged war on American citizens.
There's no other way to describe it.
They were ramming tanks into a building filled with women and children and, you know, men and shooting barrels and barrels of tear gas in there.
I mean, they couldn't have even done this in war because it would be a war crime.
What they did was worse.
And there was nobody to hold him accountable because it was our own government doing it.
I think that anything involving the military should never be used on American citizens.
That's my general belief.
Well, the founders had the exact same idea.
My great-great-grandfathers all voted down the Constitution originally, because it did not include a Bill of Rights and had a risk of a national standing army, which was supposed to never occur.
But, you know, we are here we are now.
In that context, you look at what happened in Waco, you look at what happened in these recent cases, where we're seeing a repeat of some of the same tactics, some of the same techniques.
We're seeing the President encouraged to do extraordinary things in this pandemic.
In terms of what's happened in the political reaction to the pandemic, are you surprised at all at the massive scale of both suspension of civil liberties and civil rights, but also the willingness of so many people to go along in the same way that, at least at the time, a lot of people went along with the Waco script put out by the government, despite it belying what they were witnessing with their own eyes?
I think that people Want to feel safe and comfortable with their government.
I mean, as much as people protest Trump and they whine about how evil he is, people generally want to believe that the government is doing the right thing and looking out for them because it makes them feel safe.
And otherwise people would go crazy.
So I think that people are willing to accept the most outrageous things all the time because it's easier than than worrying about it or having to fight back against it.
I think that, you know, especially with phones and social media and technology, people don't have as much of a reason to, to think about their civil rights.
They just, they're too busy and distracted with other things.
And it's a scary concept.
I, you know, Washington would be stacking bodies by now as They say.
So, I don't know.
What do you think led to your willingness to sort of challenge or contest the institutional narrative, to be engaged in questioning it?
The same thing that, you know, it's always intriguing the Ed Snowdens of the world, the Julian Assanges of the world.
Some people like General Flynn and Roger Stone just get caught up on the wrong side of the political aisle.
People like Assange and Snowden make world-changing differences by just having a listening to their conscience rather than quieting it at moments like this.
What do you think led you to be one of those people willing to act on your conscience rather than ignoring it?
I think that, you know, people who read a lot of things that are going on, especially, you know, if you were reading WikiLeaks files, you're watching the videos they put out.
Once there's certain things that once you see them, you can't unsee it.
And then it leads you to be far more inquisitive about what your government's doing.
And I think that, you know, maybe some people just haven't had that like epiphany moment.
For me, it was Probably the Manning leaks and the collateral murder video, but Waco too.
You know, once you realize what the government is capable of, you just can't see it.
Could you remind people what that collateral murder video was?
Because one of the intriguing aspects to me is the way they're covering Assange, not only by putting in false information about him in the smear campaign, suppressing his own independent voice by locking him up and gagging him, but the same way they're suppressing reminders of the memory.
They're almost trying to memory hole the misconduct and malfeasance he was able to disclose to the world.
Could you describe that for us?
Yeah, it was some U.S.
Military in a helicopter shooting at civilians.
And one of the people that they shot and killed was a Reuters reporter.
And the U.S.
government had continuously denied that they had any involvement with the reporters.
I think it was a photojournalist.
They had repeatedly denied any involvement in his death.
And that video proved that was not true.
And they were, you know, as they were shooting, they were laughing about it.
And Chelsea Manning, I remember, described it during the trial as, she said it was like watching a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.
But the ants, you know, were journalists.
So that was the collateral murder video.
So it was such a shocking video it led Manning to take the actions that she took that ultimately led Julian Assange to disclose it to the world.
It helped undermine the pretext for war around the world that's being waged by major political people.
Do you believe that that is the primary reason why they're targeting him now?
Partially, yes.
He's embarrassed a lot of really powerful people.
I mean, he's embarrassed John Bolton.
He's embarrassed Comey.
He's certainly embarrassed Hillary Clinton.
I think that if it had only been the Manning video, I think that it would have eventually went away and that he would have been free.
But because he continuously challenged very powerful people, half of Washington, D.C.
has a bone to pick with him and wants to see him behind bars or dead.
All it takes is a few people to weasel their way in close to those who matter and convince them that he got people killed or he, you know, did something wrong and now he's sitting in Belmarsh prison.
Do you think the president should start to exercise his pardon power and exercise it not only for General Flynn and Roger Stone, but make a loud and clear statement by including Julian Assange and Ed Snowden in that group?
Absolutely.
And I think that it's actually horrifying that he hasn't.
He's let these people who all they, their only crime was supporting him.
Like Flynn lost his house.
Roger Stone lost his house.
Julian's in prison.
He, he needs to start doing some pardons.
And I think that it, it doesn't look good for him that he's not.
You need to stand by the people who are getting hurt because they tried to help you.
And, you know, as I said, the best way to stick it to the fake news and the deep state is not tweeting about them and whining about Jim Acosta.
It would be actually standing with the real, true, real news.
And WikiLeaks has never had to issue a retraction or correction ever in their history.
If he wants to prove that he's good on free press, then free him.
And I think he's been promised or been told that he should allow the justice system to take its course.
But as we can see with the Waco, and as we are now witnessing with General Flynn and Roger Stone, that is a presumption that is not warranted by the actual evidence.
Do you hope that from people who watch the new Waco series, that they'll come to look at other evidence of other cases happening today in a new light and look at it from a new perspective?
Absolutely.
I've been trying to get people to watch that documentary since it originally aired in 2018, I believe, on Paramount.
I mean, Paramount may as well have hired me with how much I was promoting that because I think that it's one of those things that can spark people to really start questioning what they're being told.
I can't recommend it enough.
And if people want to follow your work, where can they go to follow you?
I write for the Gateway Pundit and I've also launched my own site which is DistrictHerald.com and then Cassandra Rules on Twitter.
Perfect!
Thanks Cassandra!
Thank you so much!
There is a correlation and a connection and a thread other than the evidentiary methods that were used, the illicit techniques, the power plays that were employed between cases like Waco and in the later now today General Flynn case, Roger Stone case, what's happening with Julian Assange, what happened to some degree to Ed Snowden.
All of them fit a common pattern where the individual that's being targeted is isolated from being having free access to the press and the public.
Their reputation and name is tarred and feathered.
They're smeared with a shame campaign.
It is odd that they can now not rebut because they don't have the same access to the same platforms.
While the various political officers weaponize their political tools, whatever they may be, a judge using contempt power, or ordering a MECI brief, or issuing a sentence, or denying evidence, or selecting a jury.
Or a prosecutor deciding whom to prosecute whom not to whom to investigate under grand jury power and whom not to and what the politicians allow to be subpoenaed or searched for or discussed in public fully and vetted thoroughly.
That is why we are seeing the same patterns of behavior, because we never did reach a meaningful remedy and resolution to the wayward and rogue behavior that almost so many government agents, prosecutors and politicians engaged in in Waco.
It was inevitably going to be a prequel, a preview to what we are witnessing today.
And now those problems have become institutionalized.
They have basically become part of the infrastructure of the way those institutions operate to such a degree that they can even mislead the president in that capacity while he forfeits his presidential power of the pardon.
And instead is thinking about things like maybe we should put the military on the streets to vaccinate people.
In fact, I think we now have one of the video clips of that from today.
Okay.
Yeah, I think we're going to have a vaccine by the end of the year.
We're doing very well with the vaccine.
And I will tell you something.
I just literally left a meeting.
We're mobilizing our military and other forces, but we're mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine.
You know, it's a massive job to give this vaccine.
Our military is now being mobilized.
So at the end of the year, we're going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly.
That is not the kind of solution or remedy that we should be looking at or talking about or thinking about.
It's the kind of mentality and mindset that is on the wrong direction.
It goes back to, and this isn't the first time the military officials have come up with a bad idea, particularly the politicized branches of the military come up with a bad idea.
Just go and Google Operation Northwoods to see what kind of ideas they were trying to pitch to President Kennedy.
Back in the early 1960s.
They're shocking.
And the fact that it went through the entire vetted food chain up to the president to even be thought about in the first place is as shocking as much as anything.
It was something that was denied by the political classes for a long time as just a conspiracy theory until it was released under the Freedom of Information Act in 1998.
It reveals the degree to which and the way in which many of these people think and operate.
It's a mindset.
The same infected mindset we see leading to the Waco outcome.
The same infected mindset we see that breeds Spygate.
The same infected mindset that leads to a bogus impeachment effort against the president.
The same infected mindset that leads to the targeting of whistleblowers like William Binney, Edward Snowden, or Julian Assange, and that's what he really is, an independent member of the press helping to get a whistleblower story out about misconduct in high-ranking political places to the rest of the world.
The same mindset infects all of those political actors who fail to pursue justice or truth, but instead try to pervert it and distort it for the political purposes and partisan agenda that they serve.
And if we are to reverse that, if we are to change that equation, the president itself has to be the leader of it.
Well, there are ordinary Americans trying to take that lead themselves.
We'll be discussing in a moment with one of the leaders of the Free Tennessee Movement.
I'll be up there this weekend to make a presentation and speech about my fellow Tennesseans, my fellow native Tennesseans.
Willingness and readiness to continue to contest and challenge some of the illicit orders being issued by mayors and other county officials in major cities and urban centers and throughout the state.
Indeed, as we found out last week, they had actually created a quarantine camp For people.
Apparently it's for people that were from a homeless shelter.
They decided they weren't going to allow anyone with COVID back into the homeless shelter, but they were going to effectively arrest them, though they had committed no probable cause of a crime, no clear and convincing evidence of a highly deadly transmissible disease.
Instead, they just sort of locked them up in a camp at the Nashville Fairgrounds.
This only leaked out when one of the individuals fled.
And then he was arrested for fleeing a penal institution.
How could you be fleeing a penal institution when you've never been arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime?
That was the nature of what's happening in parts of the state of Tennessee.
So a group started a Free Tennessee movement several weeks ago that helped precipitate the governor reversing course.
I helped bring suits there that helped precipitate some mayors reversing, at least partially, their path that they were on.
Indeed, you can find it in the Times Free Press article that goes into detail about how the anti-lockdown Free Tennessee movement was launched.
And it goes into Kimberly Edwards and others who are willing and ready and able to start to make a stand against the suppression of their constitutional liberties, the deprivation of economic opportunity they were witnessing in their cities, counties and states.
A state that has a long history of supporting free action and liberty against that of statist resistance.
And indeed, if a right isn't a right, then it ends up becoming a permission slip.
And someone who is resisting that and one of the leaders of the Free Tennessee Movement is with us now and that's Kimberly Edwards.
Kimberly, are you here?
Yes.
How are you?
Good, thank you.
Thanks for having me.
Can you explain to people what led you to start and be involved in Free Tennessee Movement from the first place?
So it basically started with me being active in medical freedom to begin with in the state of Tennessee.
I'm a big supporter of the idea that you should be in full control over what happens to your own body and that the government and the hospital shouldn't be able to force anything on you.
And when it came to the executive order that Governor Lee put out to start off with, I think my family was willing to kind of tough it out.
But when he extended that until the end of the month, we, I mean, that was really a big red flag for us, especially when he said that social distancing was a new way of life for Tennesseans until there was a vaccine and that that was going to take about 18 months.
And I had about 30 friends from all across Tennessee, not just people in the medical freedom movement, that Tea Party patriots and people in the Second Amendment right movement and just people who were frustrated with their civil liberties being trampled on and small business owners.
We hopped on a Zoom call and we said that we need to stand up and fight this.
And I just kind of got nominated as a point person and we've just been running with it ever since.
And what was your goal and objective when you got it going?
I think to be heard and to affect change, we wanted to put an end to the executive order completely.
It's one thing to have guidelines and it's one thing to put those out there as a suggestion and to treat us like we're adults.
But to have an executive order that divides people into categories of essential or non-essential and strips away basic civil liberties, that wasn't something that any of us were willing to stand by.
So our goal is, and still is, to make that stop.
Now what's interesting is, we've done two rallies so far and the movement's grown.
We went from 30 people to now almost 11,000 people in the group and almost all of them live in the state of Tennessee.
Um, and what we've noticed as we've been reaching out to our legislators and the mayor and the governor's office is that they're constantly pushing the buck back onto the health department, saying that they're taking their cues from them.
So we've decided that then we're going to talk to the health department directly.
And the more that I've looked into the legislation around it, the more that I'm kind of shocked at how it's all happening.
That there are task forces who are not elected.
In Nashville specifically, they don't even have those names publicized.
None of the meetings that they've had have been open to the public.
I can't get any of the agenda notes on the website like you could for any other bureaucratic committee.
So we want them to hear us loud and clear that we know they're influencing policy and they need to lay down that power.
So the various mayors and governors are claiming that the public health officials are the ones really driving the boat.
But those public health officials have not been public with what drove them to do what they did.
And so it sounds like what you're describing is you can't even get access to notes of meetings, access to how they made decisions, what information they were relying upon.
Is that the case?
That is the case, specifically in Nashville.
They've had a couple of things at the state level that have been a little bit more public, but it's still very much behind closed doors.
When you watch the briefings, you're getting the media's access to the health department.
But the number of times we've called the health department and asked, who can we talk to who is influencing these policies?
And no one will help us to get in contact with them.
And our legislators are telling us that they can't influence it.
It's definitely an interesting situation, but we want to be heard and we want an exchange and we want them to know that this is not constitutional to give so much power to a group of people we didn't elect with no accountability and no way of influencing that from the public.
In terms of the other people in the group, what were some of the factors that motivated and drove them in terms of the ability to support their families, the ability to have employment, the ability to express basic constitutional liberties, enjoy basic freedoms?
Could you describe some of what the group described in terms of what drove them to take this extraordinary action?
Yeah, absolutely.
I would say initially our first people in the group were predominantly people whose small businesses and their jobs were affected.
People who weren't able to survive off of the unemployment or who simply did not want to be stuck surviving on unemployment forever.
And they were watching their businesses crumble.
That was kind of the initial beginnings of the group.
Now we have a lot of people who especially are upset that their churches have not been meeting and have not been able to come together.
And they're wanting to step up and fight for that religious freedom.
And the more that we are experiencing the mental and emotional effects of being socially isolated, and the way in which Governor Lee is enforcing the Tennessee Pledge,
By having people, you know, the consumers enforce that, there's a lot of fear that is spreading, and a lot of shame that is spreading from citizen to citizen, and now there are more people who are saying, look... So in other words...
Yeah, so well, so basically it's impacting every aspect of their lives.
So you have limits on what political expression you can engage in, limits on what religious expression you can engage in, limits on your ability to just open up your business, limits on your ability to work, limits on your ability.
Has there been any effort by any public official in Tennessee to say they're going to provide any form of compensation for the property they've taken or the deprivation of business during this time frame?
All that's been provided that I'm aware of is the unemployment rate.
And there were some small business loans, but the money disappeared very quickly.
But that is the most that I've seen.
There are also some very generous groups that are private non-profit organizations that I know people have donated to that are helping with mortgage assistance and things like that.
What are the next steps for the Free Tennessee Movement?
So we will be having another rally and this time we're rallying outside the State Health Department.
It's this Sunday, May 17th from 1 to 2.30 p.m.
and we're so grateful that you're going to be there with us to speak.
We also have two doctors who are coming to speak to talk very specifically about alternative health approaches.
And what the health department is kind of missing as far as alternative perspectives and ways to address public health without trampling civil liberties.
And then myself and another mom who are just going to be speaking about our experience.
Personally, my business, both my husband's and my businesses were completely gone and we are phase four.
So we'll just be kind of highlighting what this is, what this shutdown is doing to destroy people's lives.
And hopefully we will have just this enormous turnout and that we will be heard.
The news people are going to be there and we just we want all of our legislators, the governor, the mayors, we want them to know that they can't continue doing this.
So that's going to be this Sunday in Nashville.
Is it across from the, could you describe sort of the setting of where people would go?
Yes, absolutely.
So the health department is on the corner at 710 James Robertson Parkway and there's this huge green field right across the street from it.
So we're going to be setting up camp right across from the health department and being there in that green area.
It's kind of at the bottom of the hill there.
Okay, perfect.
So everybody can get together, they can both have their voices heard, hear your and other voices, and hopefully that a state that should be one of the more reasonable states still is not fully compliant with the constitutional requirements that both the Tennessee Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution provide for.
So where else can people get connected to the Free Tennessee Movement or follow you or get access to the information concerning the movement?
Yes, absolutely.
So, our biggest presence right now is on Facebook.
The name of the group is hashtag FreeTN.
However, we are very excited, probably tonight or tomorrow morning, we're trying to get it to go live.
We have a website, freetn.org, and you can contact us there at contact at freetn.org.
Perfect.
Thanks a lot for being with us, and we'll be up there and see you soon.
Thanks, Robert.
Appreciate it.
I'll be up in Tennessee because it's my home state.
It's the state of Davy Crockett.
It's the state of Andrew Jackson.
It's a state that used to have a little more pride than it has right now in terms of what our politicians have been up to in my home state.
So that's why I'll be up there joining the protest organizations to introduce both constitutional limits on what governments can do.
But also to reinstate democratic limitations and constraints on the actions of government, but also to make sure that we have some politics and policies that reflect more sanity than the kind of inanity and insanity we're seeing in places like Los Angeles, California.
A mayor who's begging to be sued and Governor Grusome is apparently begging to be sued.
By the continuous restrictions and restraints they're imposing on people in that state.
To such a degree that even people, a wide range of celebrities, from Elon Musk to Joe Rogan are talking about needing to move out of California, move away from California and get to the free state of Texas, where at least it's mostly free here.
Though there's some parts and places that continue to have some issues with that.
And that's why the Attorney General had to remind them of their limits and restraints just yesterday and the day before.
So we ask you to continue to support the sponsor of this program that makes this platform entirely possible.
In a time period going all the way back to the Waco case, getting access to independent information outside the gated institutional narrative so that you could make a decision was critical and essential.
So go to InfoWarsStore.com.
That's where you can buy a wide range of products that make this show possible, that make independent information possible.
And you can get healthier, wealthier, and wiser in the process of getting products that are beneficial for you, that you can purchase at a discount, and that support the last bastion of free press left in the world.
So come back with us after the break.
We'll be taking your calls and discussing all of these issues a little more.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
We're going to be taking your calls, the jury, in this segment of the show.
You can call in at 877-789-2539.
That's 877-789-2539.
Or calling internationally, 512-646-1776.
7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
That's 8-7-7-7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
Or if calling internationally, 512-646-1776.
That's 512-646-1776.
And as always, we encourage you to support our sponsor, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can get a wide range of products that are available on a shortened sale date.
There's a sale that's going through for about another four days, and then it will end.
A wide range of products from various things, supplements that support your health, to coffee that you can wake up to every morning, to air filters that help you out, even an InfoWars mask if you're living in one of those places that requires it, just to publicly participate in life.
So, the support, go to Infowarsstore.com, get what you need, get yourself healthier, wealthier, and wiser in the process.
That's the utility and beauty of an independent company providing independent products that ultimately supports an independent press.
In the same capacity, there was another documentary that came out, and if we're talking about the ways in which there's an orchestration of a certain narrative that is in fact self-serving, that uses public policy as a pretext to enrich some at the expense of others, and the way we're seeing in terms of the cover-up campaign that involved Waco, or the misconduct that's involved in either the General Flynn, Roger Stone prosecutions, or now in the targeting of Ed Snowden or Julian Assange.
Whether we look at it from that legal perspective or we shift to the political perspective of what's happening in the pandemic context, where there's massive shifts of economic and political power under the pretext of preventing a virus.
Well, in the same context, much of green energy has a similar texture, has a similar viewpoint, if you go in and dig into the data and the information.
And no less than Michael Moore actually produced a film that, even though it came from a left-leaning perspective, exposed how the green energy racket is just that, a racket, that much of the climate apocalyptic theories that are being propagated are being pushed for the purposes of enriching a select group of people and empowering a select group of people at the expense of others, not about actually protecting the environment.
Indeed, many of these so-called green energies consume more fossil fuels than the ones they're purportedly trying to replace.
Indeed, he went into further detail where a particular figure would make another appearance.
Someone known also from my home state of Tennessee, Al Gore.
Let's take a look at an excerpt of the film and let's look at clip two from the Michael Moore film.
The bank that crashed the economy, ruined millions of lives, and has their tentacles on the levers of power.
What would their favorite form of green energy be?
One of the very interesting markets that we deal with is Brazil.
It's unlike any other market in that today, alternative energy isn't really alternative energy.
It's so much a part of the fabric of the society.
The country began to utilize its vast resources of sugarcane to produce ethanol.
There was a man from Goldman Sachs who was particularly in love with turning forests into profits.
Has everybody got enough coffee?
You might want to get some more.
Meet David Blood, former CEO of Asset Management for Goldman Sachs.
How much money did Mr. Blood believe should be invested in green energy?
A natural alignment for something in the order of 40 to 50 trillion dollars worth of capital.
40 to 50 trillion dollars.
And who was going to help the man from Goldman Sachs?
Help him raise that astronomical amount of money?
Gentlemen, some of you may recognize and know Bill McKibben.
It's entirely dependent on what kind of political will we can muster.
And if we do not get this done very fast, then we're not going to get it done.
And so Bill McKibben went forth to generate the political will for trillions of dollars in green investments.
Our next guest has been called our nation's leading environmentalist.
And you are, in some sense, the Grand Poopa of the environmental movement.
My guest tonight is on a global crusade.
On a global crusade for what?
Commit to divesting from fossil fuels.
We can't justify investing our money in companies that are basically running Genesis backward.
So when you divest from fossil fuels and invest in green funds, what are you investing in?
I took a deep dive into Securities and Exchange Commission filings to find out.
For instance, in the Green Century Funds, recommended by 350.org and Bill McKibben, I found less than 1% solar and wind, and 99% things like mining, oil and gas infrastructure companies, Including a tar sands exploiter.
McDonald's, one of the companies driving meat consumption across the planet.
Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world's largest producers of biofuel.
Coca-Cola, the largest creator of plastic pollution on Earth.
Logging and paper companies, including one that brags about biomass burning.
And banks, Lots of banks, including BlackRock, the largest financer of deforestation on Earth.
The business that they're engaged in is actually destroying our life support system.
The Sierra Club also partners with a green fund called Aspiration.
Aspiration also includes dozens of companies profiting from the destruction of the planet.
Including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Chesapeake Energy.
In order to maximize the production potential of the well, the shale formation will be hydraulically fractured.
The Russian gas giant Gazprom.
Gazprom owns the world's largest explored gas reserves, 36 trillion cubic meters.
And in perhaps the most bizarre twist of all, the Sierra Club's Green Fund's biggest holding is Enviva, the world's largest consumer of forests, to be incinerated in green energy biomass plants.
Of course, one investment option is a Green Fund, run by Bill McKibben's buddy, David Blood.
And who is the chairman of this fund?
Someone familiar.
Use capitalism.
It gives incentives for people to do their best.
Al Gore and David Blood partnered to form a company called Blood & Gore.
No, scratch that.
Generation Investment Management.
And within this fund, Blood & Gore designated a special investment category, targeting $650 million of biomass and biofuels.
The funny thing was, they partnered before Al Gore's film came out.
Was that movie just about climate change?
Or something else?
On one side, we have gold bars.
Mmm.
Don't they look good?
I'd just like to have some of those gold bars.
On the other side of the scales, the entire planet.
If we do the right thing, then we're going to create a lot of wealth.
And when it came time for Al Gore to choose between the entire planet and getting him some of them gold bars, what choice did he make?
Here's Al Gore earning his keep by pretending to care about the rainforest while lobbying Congress on behalf of the sugarcane ethanol industry.
Any comment on the Brazilian effort here with the issue of the possibility of expanding into that Amazon River basin with further deforestation to produce more ethanol out of sugar cane is a worry, and apparently you're not as concerned about that.
No, no, I am.
I simply forgot.
What's been going on there is really very troubling.
And with your permission, I'll show you a very quick example of it over a period of 25 years.
Thank you.
The invasion of sugarcane monocultures in the region clashes with the indigenous people's right to land.
These are images of a last-ditch attempt by the Guarani Kaiowa to resist eviction.
It's important to note that the exploitation of the sugarcane growing areas in Brazil does not have to inevitably have the knock-on consequence of causing destruction in the Amazon.
Sugarcane fields are burning.
They set alight before the harvest to eliminate the leaves and tops of the plant, which makes cutting more efficient.
Environmentalists blame the seemingly endless sugarcane fields for air and water pollution on an epic scale.
And along with deforestation, the threat it poses to the environment is becoming clear.
Once the indigenous families were expelled, the landowners set their homes on fire.
Is there anything too terrible to qualify as green energy?
Thank you very much Secretary Mabus and the U.S.
Navy for once again inviting me to speak with you today.
The Navy's work to help launch this new fuels industry is invaluable.
The U.S.
Navy has a special message this year.
It is time to turn green.
Joining the vessels is what the U.S.
Navy calls its Great Green Fleet of warships powered by fuel from renewable sources like algae, grass, and animal fat.
Animal fat.
The next time you fill up at your neighborhood gas station, you might find yourself pumping a little alligator into your tank.
That's right.
UL Lafayette researchers have developed alligator fat into a renewable source for biofuels.
And once we run through the animals, what's next?
GE, who brings you nuclear energy and wind turbines, is ready with a plan.
I believe that liquid fuels, chemicals are eventually going to have to be made through, from sustainable raw materials.
We believe that seaweed is one of the most attractive opportunities.
Better hurry.
One year after it was filmed, the seaweed forest was dead.
One year after it was filmed, You might ask yourself, how could men destroy what remains of nature to enrich themselves?
Well, that's why they're billionaires, and you're not.
The takeover of the environmental movement by capitalism is now complete.
Environmentalists are no longer resisting those with a profit motive, but collaborating with them.
The Nature Conservancy is now the Logging Conservancy.
We will capture the most important pieces biologically, and there will be another large block sold to timber investment groups.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has become the Union of Concerned Salesmen, having taken millions not for science, but to create markets for electric cars.
The Sierra Club sells electric cars and solar panels right from their website.
The best thing about Syngevity is that they make it easy for you.
All that you have to do is to say yes.
The New York Times partners with ExxonMobil to bring you the good news about biofuels.
Algae-derived fuel could help us meet growing demand.
Triager.com, which claims to be the largest single source of environmental news, was founded and funded by Georgia Pacific.
How is 350.org funded?
In fact, they are neighbors.
Georgia Pacific is owned by our friends the Koch brothers, who are likely the largest recipient of green energy biomass subsidies in the United States.
Yes, the merger of environmentalism and capitalism is now complete.
But maybe it's always been complete.
How is 350.org funded?
Well, not very well.
Who are your funders?
To the degree that we have any money at all, it's come from a few foundations.
Which ones?
U.S.
Let's see.
I'm trying to think who the biggest funders are.
There's a foundation based in Sweden, I think it's called the Rasmussen Foundation, that I think has been the biggest funder.
So you don't get money from Pew or Rockefeller or any of those big foundations?
No, Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave us some money right when we were starting out.
That's been useful too.
But they no longer fund you?
Uh, I don't know.
I don't have a sort of... Really?
You just sold your TV network to Al Jazeera.
Right.
And that government is basically nothing but an oil producer.
Gas, mainly, and oil.
Your take on that, about $100 million pre-tax from a country that bases its wealth on fossil fuels.
Isn't there a bit of hypocrisy in that?
Well, I get the criticism.
I just disagree with it.
I'm proud of the transaction.
You couldn't find for your business a more sustainable choice.
What is not sustainable about it?
Because it is backed by fossil fuel money.
I get it.
And so, if you got yourself an environmental movement and environmental leaders, why not buy the Holy Day itself?
Happy Earth Day!
You made me want to say Oh, you made me want to say Now we are facing the greatest sets of issues that we've seen in my lifetime.
It's time now for a new generation to jump up on the stage and create a habitable country, a habitable planet that we can all enjoy.
Are you that generation?
I need to thank Building Energy which provided so much solar power to this that we've powered the entire event with solar energy.
But when I went backstage to see what was really going on... It ain't running this whole thing on that, Jack.
I can tell you that.
The toaster is 1,200 watts.
So that run right there could run a toaster.
I found the installer.
Hi.
Are they running the festival on these solar panels?
The concert is run by a diesel generation system.
They didn't ask us to energize the concert.
Oh, okay.
And we'd also like to thank our incredible corporate sponsors who've been behind the movement to end extreme poverty and tackle climate change since the very beginning.
We want to thank Toyota, Citibank, Citibank.
That's who is really sponsoring the environmental movement.
The climate apocalypse pitch is about certain people getting to pocket profit and power for themselves at the expense of others.
Not really about any actual environmental concern in the way in which it is exposed in that movie.
You can find it on YouTube.
Planet of the Humans.
Mostly free and mostly accessible.
And while it has some various ideas in it that I don't necessarily support or embrace, it has a lot of factual information that discredits the environmental industry en masse.
So it's worth it.
In the same way, you can find films like The Rules of Engagement and Waco New Revelations that are also useful and informative.
So let's go to some of your calls.
Let's go to Rick from Florida.
How are you?
Hey, how are you, Rick?
Excellent, excellent.
Yeah, I spoke to Alex earlier today.
We spoke about...a couple of weeks ago, we heard the WHO Director, the World Health Organization Director, Tedros.
He stated that we were going to go into homes and look for sick family members and remove them with dignity.
And then, last week, we were shocked when we saw children being torn from their parents' arms in Australia.
And on Tuesday, what I got hold of is a Zoom meeting.
The Broward County, Florida County Commissioners are having a workshop on talking about ways to open up the state, or open up the county, rather.
And our county commissioner, our county administrator, her name is Bertha Henry, unelected, by the way, she was using much of the same rhetoric.
She started with talking about going into assisted living facilities and removing people, and then she crossed over to talking about Going into individual family homes and separating individuals and isolating them.
I have a video of it.
I've sent it to InfoWars, as I told Alex earlier today, and I think this really needs national attention.
I'm here in Broward County, Florida, which, as you know, is probably the most corrupt and definitely the most Liberal County in the great state of Florida.
And it is a great state.
We do have a governor we feel is doing a good job.
But this Bertha Henry, she is the one, not our governor, Bertha Henry is the one who shut down our economy, shut down our businesses, shut down our beaches, shut down our parks.
And we really need the people in Broward County to open their eyes.
And see that the people who are charged with taking care of them and keeping them safe are not doing that.
And in fact, their families are not safe.
And they need to open their eyes.
Absolutely.
I mean, that's a very good.
I mean, Broward County is infamous in Florida.
So, for example, it is particularly becomes infamous almost each election cycle because somehow Broward County ends up being the least, the last or latest to report their vote totals.
It's almost as if someone in Broward County is waiting to see how the rest of the state votes and seeing how many votes they need to somehow magically come out of Broward County to put a Democratic candidate or a favored candidate over the edge and over the top.
This is the way, in fact, elections used to happen in Texas is famously done during LBJ's day in which they would wait for key areas to report the latest so they would know what ballot count they needed to sort of magically fluff up in order to get the outcome desired, in order to get the result they wanted.
As an old Democratic aide told me years ago when I was a kid, Bobby, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes that count.
And there is still an aspect of that in Broward County.
So it gives you an idea that these power-mad politicians, particularly in jurisdictions like Broward County, Florida, are going to embrace the kind of policies that are being discussed.
And if we go all the way back, we look at the World Health Organization, which was the first to sort of leak this out, when they talked about it at a TV presentation, as was referenced by Rick.
They talk about, hey, you know what, we may need to go in and do so with dignity, but remove people from their own home, remove people from their own family for their own protection.
That was the first time this idea got floated.
It's the way ideas tend to get floated, to see what the pushback is, to see how much resistance there is, to see how much they can get away with it in terms of going forward.
Much as, in fact, this idea to have the military go out on the streets and do potentially forcible vaccinations or vaccinate people is sort of a trial balloon that everybody needs to push back against in order to preclude it from actually happening here.
And we saw it.
It started with the World Health Organization.
They were the first ones to sort of whisper about it or reference it.
Then, as he mentioned, we see it with the protester in Australia where she is separated from her child in the name of protection.
We've seen child services actions being threatened or taken in different jurisdictions.
Even a doctor losing access to their kid solely because of this pandemic panic response in some aspects of our legal and political system.
And then of course we had in Ventura County in California where you had county officials talking about how if you only had one bathroom in your house they were probably going to have to go in and separate people and remove people and then take them to a new place a new housing setup sort of sounded like something out of a Japanese internment camp The kind of discussion or conversation and do so for your own benefit and for everyone else's.
That got leaked and then so we had the World Health Organization, we had what happened in Australia, we have the California Ventura County, then we have last week in Nashville where they're actually having arresting people and disclosing that they've set up a quarantine camp where they're effectively locking people in even though they haven't committed any crime, haven't been charged with a crime, haven't been convicted of a crime.
And then they're charged with fleeing a penal institution for simply trying to escape the quarantine camp that was being set up, that was being discussed in Ventura County, that was being discussed by the World Health Organization.
And now we have a story out of Broward County, Florida, where the same ideas are being bounced around, the same mindset and mentality is being embraced.
We've seen disaster after disaster, debacle after debacle.
When we let power-mad politicians, power-mad police, seize power in this way.
We're seeing it in what's happening to our legal system.
We're seeing it in what's happening to our political system.
And now there's threats to put the military on the street to enforce it.
We don't need another replay.
We don't need a sequel.
We don't need Waco Part 2.
▲
Export Selection