RFK, Jr SUES Biden And Fauci Over Covid Censorship Pressure!
We learned from the "Twitter Files" that Biden Administration officials exerted tremendous pressure on US social media companies to silence and "disappear" posters with opinions the government didn't like. Now, Children’s Health Defense Director Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is doing something about it: suing those very government officials for violating the US Constitution! Also today: Why does the US keep blocking a UN investigation of the NordStream sabotage? Finally: Will AI put you out of work?
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Doing well.
Excellent.
Doing well.
All right.
We want to start off with talking about one of our friends is doing some real work, somebody that's been around for a while, and he's had his lumps and his difficulties, but he's a fighter, and on the issue of vaccinations and, you know, government overreach and the First Amendment, he's great.
And that, of course, is RFK.
And he has a group that's been around for a long time, the Children's Health Defense Fund.
And so he's targeted in, you know, it's a civil rights issue, it's a meddling issue.
But the fact that he emphasizes what they do to the children, which is always available, even the COVID stuff, was abusive.
And Robert certainly spoke out on that.
But he has filed a suit under the Children's Health Defense Fund.
And he is suing the government for doing something that is very, very nasty.
But it's very, very well known.
And everybody complained about it.
But Robert is doing something about it.
He's filing a suit against the government.
And that is the encouragement of the coalition between big business, you know, the social media and the government.
And it's been exposed.
You know, it was some good exposure several weeks ago, but I think it's sort of died down.
I hope people will forget.
But this will serve the purpose of keeping it alive and understanding exactly what's going on.
And this is what he's objecting to, rightfully so, that this coalition.
And then the government could always say, and we've talked about this a good bit, but the government will always say, we're for the First Amendment.
We're holier than thou.
And it's these companies that do it.
But the more those things go on, the more collusion there is with big corporations.
That's why we as libertarians and constitutionalists and free market people should be winning this argument because there was a time when the progressives would lead to charge, don't finance the pharmaceutical companies, don't finance the military industrial complex, but they're sort of off somewhere.
But anyway, I think this is great that he's filed this suit, and let's hope it gets the attention it deserves.
Yeah, and I think this, we can actually put this first one up.
This is from a release that they put out, I think, yesterday.
RFK Jr. and the Children's Health Defense suing Biden and Fauci and others for alleged censorship.
And I think this may be the first Twitter files class action suit because I think, and it does say later in this article, that a lot of the evidence is very, very obvious from the Twitter files releases and talking about the collusion.
We can actually put the next one up, the collusion between government doing something that they're not constitutionally permitted to do, but pressuring private business to do what they want to have done, which is to shut people up who say anything against the government's narrative.
And here's from the article.
RFK Jr. And Children's Health Defense filed a class action lawsuit against Biden, Fauci, and other top administration officials and federal agencies, alleging they, quote, waged a systematic concerted campaign to compel the nation's three largest social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.
It's a big deal.
It's big that he's doing it.
He's not only the head of children's self-defense, but he's their chief litigator.
So he's going to be in the trenches fighting this fight.
And I think it's, of course, we had RFK Jr. speak at our conference, I think, in 2021.
He was terrific.
He did such a great job.
And we really have to support him in this.
This is such an important event.
You know, putting this in a narrow category is unnecessary.
You say, well, this is one circumstance that's come up.
The drug companies got too close to the government and they worked out a deal.
They probably have been working out deals for centuries.
And generally speaking, that's probably true.
But this also makes the point on principle that there is a proper collusion.
So it's economics, of course.
It's medical, of course, but it's also very political speech.
You know, just the fact that you get arrested or silenced because of this.
And there's the one new twist on here, which is this ability of the social media to use their tools of canceling people.
See, they may have done that before, subtly or just stop contracts or something like that.
But this was big-time stuff, and that was a tool.
That was one of the negative tools of what the social media was doing.
But this is why I think it's a very important thing because it points all these things out.
It's a principle of liberty.
And it's also, if you realize what's happening here, I don't think he uses the word fascism because sometimes people, that turns you off.
But what Robert's trying to do is prevent a system.
I still call it corporatism, where the corporations have all these deals with the government.
But in many ways, it's fascistic.
And if it continues to go in that direction, it becomes more authoritarian.
And every time you look around, there's a new law being passed, which is the authoritarian law of loss of our privacy and total.
And this is why I think this is important, because if it is not pointed out, people say, well, well, this is one thing, and don't worry about it.
But I think we should worry about it and do something about it.
And I'm delighted Robert's doing something about it.
You mentioned people getting canceled.
Now, they were not being canceled with these social media companies because the users violated the terms of service.
That would be a different thing.
Now, if they give you one term of service and you don't violate it, but they say you did, I mean, that's a breach of contract issue.
This is different.
And this is why it's so important because it wasn't violation of terms of service, but it was at the behest of the government.
And we've seen so many times from the Twitter files where the government officials Would literally send an email to Twitter.
We want these guys nuked.
We want these guys axed.
So directly, they didn't even try to hide it.
And this is where the real problem is.
And it's, you know, again, that they identified this and are going after it is very important.
Let's put on the next clip.
This is from that release.
And here's where they point out exactly what we've been talking about.
The plaintiffs, that's RFK and his team, allege top-ranking government officials among them, along with an ever-growing army of federal officers at every level of the government, from the White House to the FBI, the CIA, Department of Homeland Security, to lesser well-known federal agencies, induced these companies, these social media companies, quote, to stifle viewpoints that the government disfavors, to suppress facts that the government does not want the public to hear,
and to silence specific speakers, in every case, critics of federal policy, whom the government has targeted by name.
You know, I'm glad you mentioned this idea or understanding about contract because the contract isn't used enough.
And if there is the contract, this sort of gets around this problem.
So if we join up with Facebook and they get public pressure, look, I'm not going to sign up.
What's the deal?
Are you going to turn my names over?
But people, a lot of times, let them know that we're not going to turn your names over to anybody.
So if there's a contract, then you can do the suing.
And that's a little bit different than when there's a secret understanding where the social media makes more money by giving information to the government, and then the government reimburses it for it.
There's a lot of money that goes from government to social media as well.
And some of the things that people were censored are things that we were dealing with for two years.
The efficacy of masks.
If you question that, you really ran the risk of being silenced.
And now we know it wasn't just YouTube silencing them.
It was YouTube acting at the behest of the government.
If you question the efficacy of masks, that's now been proven to be a very questionable utility.
Even the New York Times says masks didn't work.
Now what?
The other one, and I think you have a couple of them: the idea that it's quote-unquote disinformation to question whether this virus may have leaked from a lab.
And now we know that Fauci actually put out disinformation, which was to say that it was disinformation to suggest that it came out of a lab.
You know, fundamentally, you know, I mentioned the political restrictions once you get involved in saying what, you know, controlling what you can say and not say, and they can penalize a person.
And it involves generally economics and the politics.
But now we know that they interfere with medical care.
Yeah.
We don't even have the right of doctor-patient relationship.
That's literally what they're doing.
For private medicine to exist, you're interfering with government medicine.
You know, buying drugs and whatever.
They control every single thing.
Every time a patient goes to a doctor now, a federal registration is made.
It says, and the government gets it instantaneously.
Oh, but they're protecting the consumers, you know, and they're protecting the patients.
And they do such a good job in protecting, but they might be protecting the pharmaceutical companies.
That's the group that I think really get the protection.
Yeah, and they did get the protection, and they were also in bed with government.
So we saw what happened.
The other thing, remember, is vaccination injuries.
You were never allowed to say that there was any such thing.
Everything was 1,000% effective.
Nobody got hurt.
And now I think you even have a clip over here where the German health minister admits, you know what, when I said there's no injuries, I kind of lied to you guys.
So these are the kinds of things, as you point out just now.
If they had gotten out, they may have actually saved lives.
People would have been able to make their own decisions according to their own circumstances, and we may have had a lot less tragedies.
Yes, and this German health minister admits COVID jabs can cause permanent disabilities.
And now he's for it.
He switched.
It's good that he switched.
But how long does that take?
I do want to follow up a little bit about these rights issues in the Constitution, because that's what we're dealing with here.
Because there's one major misunderstanding or misinterpretation on purpose, because part of the Constitution gives explicit authority to the federal government what it can do.
Constitutional Misinterpretations00:07:26
And there are some things they tell the government they can't do.
They can't print money and they can't do certain things like this.
And then the federal, they tell it what they can do and can't do.
But the real fallacy is, and this is why they go ahead and do some of these things.
They said, well, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that we can't do this.
But it really is there.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendment, you know, those are clear-cut, very easy to read, and easy to understand.
Because if it's not explicit and you're a little bit confused on what you can do, you don't have the authority to do it.
The right is either going to go to the people or the power is going to go to the states.
And the flexibility will be with the states, not with the bureaucracy, because someday the government might get so big it'll be uncontrollable.
And that's what the founders feared.
And unfortunately, they were right in their fear because look at what monstrosity.
And I was impressed by what Robert named all those organizations, the government organizations, CIA, FBI, IRS, Department of Homeland Security.
They're all after us.
But it's all going to make us safe and happy.
Well, it's hard to emphasize enough how important this is because they really did want to get away with this.
And you pointed out earlier, well, why don't we just let this slide?
Some people might think that if they get away with this, then they're going to keep going.
They're going to keep rationing it up.
And a couple of last things, if we can put that next, this is from the same release.
A couple of more quotes from this.
So this is the other thing.
The complaint cites the now weekly ongoing disclosures of secret communications between social media companies and federal officials in the Twitter files, other lawsuits, and news reports, which revealed, and this is important, threats by Biden and other top officials against social media companies if they failed to aggressively censor.
And if you go to the next one, and this is where it started very, very early on, once President Biden took office in January 21, senior White House officials reported that the Biden team began, quote, direct engagement with social media companies to quote clamp down on speech the White House disfavored, which officials called misinformation.
Of course, it turns out that everything they were putting out was misinformation and disinformation.
But it's so important that they hit the ground running on this.
And this article mentions not just the COVID, but the laptop issue.
Oh, that's Russian disinformation.
That's not Hunter's laptop.
He's a choir boy.
He's not a crackhead.
So it's important, I think.
You know, I use the word a lot of nihilism and the nihilist because I think it's so fitting.
Because it really is like that individual's a nihilist.
He has no conscience.
They don't.
And when they flip, they change their attitudes.
They get caught in telling lies.
They get caught stealing.
But they're never embarrassed at all.
And they don't feel shame.
But what they do is, I think they fit in the category.
If you want to put them in a medical category, They're sociopaths, but that doesn't make it any softer.
That's just a description.
But that to me is a big problem because it's justified.
And that's why I think it's very important that there's clarity.
And I think they did a wonderful effort with the Constitution to make it as clear as possible.
And they also warned us about the most serious threat, and that will be the morality of a people on whether or not they care.
But, you know, as bad as things are, I keep looking at the revival of an interest in personal liberty and free markets and contracts and all the things that we believe in.
So I think it's out there.
And even with all this stuff, you say we might be a little bit late on this, and more people should have been talking, but Robert's there, and there's other people out there.
And all of a sudden, you'll say, you know, he's right, he's right, and spread the message.
Exactly.
And I will try to put a link to this article.
We can't cover the whole article, but it goes down the bill of particulars very, very well.
It's definitely worth reading.
But the final thing that we should mention, and you and I talked about it before the show, is this Norwood principle.
And this is something you talk about all the time.
The federal government can't pressure private citizens to do things that the federal government itself is not allowed to do.
That's a pretty sound principle.
And, you know, it fits into the Bastiat principle.
I like the Bastiat principle because he narrows it down to an economic and a contractual thing.
That if I can't steal from you, most people still recognize that.
If you have three cars and I only have one, I'm not allowed to go and take your car.
And just about everybody, you know, wouldn't want to argue and have a debate over that.
And Bastiat merely says, if you as an individual will be held guilty of a crime for doing something, hurting people, stealing from people, and interfering with activities.
And I think this whole nonsense about freedom of speech could be solved with property rights.
It's where you are.
You can say anything you want.
You can write any book you want.
You can burn any book you want in your house.
But you can't go and use government property and government money to propagandize for political reason.
So that is, I think, very important that people know and understand this because it is something that people can relate to.
And I think that's why this whole thing is important.
And of course, Robert brought the subject up of Norwood principle and he applied that.
That these principles, yeah, it's self-evident when you read it.
But he says the Norwood principle said you don't have to go that.
You can just use common sense.
And he claims that the Norwood principle is self-evident and axiomatic.
And for most people, that is true.
But the most important thing is it doesn't work for the authoritarians or going to war and all because it's very clearly there.
And they should be able to see it and know and understand exactly what it's saying.
But they just say, oh, well, no, if there's no prohibition, we can't read in the Constitution there's a prohibition that we shouldn't listen to the United Nations, except the founders talked about entangling alliances that we should avoid.
Yeah, well, we know that RFK Jr. may have presidential ambitions.
He's put out a couple of releases saying, hey, I'm exploring it.
I'm looking into challenging Biden in 2024.
This is a heck of a base to build it on.
If this is where he's going, defending civil liberties, defending children, defending against corporatism, I think he's going to have a lot of crossover appeal.
Yeah, I think so too.
And I'm convinced that although we complain and sort of make the assumption the progressives have lost their way and they're not doing it, I think there's a lot of progressive who have been silenced.
Need For UN Investigation00:05:14
They're intimidated now.
And they're in their universities, their teachers, and all these things.
They might feel differently, but they go along.
But when the ice breaks, I think a lot of people, and maybe Robert will tap into that.
Yeah, that would be great.
Well, we've got a couple of other things to bring up.
And this is a vote in the UN Security Council.
I think it was on Monday.
We can put up this next one.
Dave DeCamp wrote about it today.
UN Security Council won't probe Nord Stream bombing.
Why won't they probe it?
You'd think that that would be their job.
Well, the reason why is that the only people in the Security Council voting in favor of it were Russia, China, and Brazil.
The remaining 12 members, they didn't vote no.
They abstained from the vote, led by the U.S., so they didn't vote.
That means they didn't have the minimum number of yes votes.
So essentially, it destroyed, you know, destroyed this call for a probe.
And again, you have to wonder why does the U.S. seem so desperate to avoid having an investigation of what happened to the Nord Stream?
They're defying reasons.
Does that put them into the courageous category that they're just bold and they're going to stand on principle?
Yeah, they are, but they're wrong principles.
They're standing up.
But of course, the UN has been a menace to us for a long time.
And there's a lot of people who have pointed it out.
But very simply, there's no authority to join the United Nations and take orders from the United Nations.
And of course, Truman was the first one.
He was barely in office.
The war was over.
Everybody was happy World War II was over.
There he goes.
Well, we need another war.
I mean, the Russians are coming, and we have to save Korea.
So we've got to send the troops on.
And those Chinese, who knows what they're going to do.
So he says, well, I'm going to send the troops.
Let's have a rule resolution.
We'll get our authority from the United Nations.
And we'll do it that way.
And we won't call it a war.
We'll just change the name.
We'll call it a police action.
Well, that was more like a war, but now at least they used the war.
They didn't try that with Vietnam.
Most people refer, well, everybody refers to Korea and not as the Korean police action, because it's so absurd.
But that is, it is really a shame because in one place I told you earlier, I said, you know, if there was one thing the United Nations did, and there was no way to say much about it, and that was what they did, and they had a committee and they were honest, honestly investigating, we should see a lot of people doing that.
We say, well, we're not going to go out of our way to stop it, even though technically it should have occurred some other way.
But no, it's going to happen.
They're going to continue to do this.
But it identifies where the problem is and where the war is.
The only thing they didn't put in was the war is really not against Ukraine and Russia and Europe.
It's a NATO war against Russia.
Yeah, and this is something that happened in the 2000s when the Republicans used to be with you about getting out of NATO and then they said, hang on, it's better for us to control it.
And that's what it looks like is happening now because without the UN to get in and have a broad investigation of who blew these pipelines up, the only investigation is being done with people who may well be part of the crime.
The Germans and the Danes are the ones involved right now.
They may be accessories to the crime if indeed the U.S. did it, according to Seymour Hearst.
Now, you'd never let a criminal investigate himself or an accused criminal investigate himself.
So why would you let Germany be the only country, why would you let Denmark be the only country involved in the investigation?
And it goes back to what Seymour Hearst said in a follow-up piece.
He said, now, if the U.S. truly didn't do this, why didn't Biden call together all of his intelligence agencies and say, look, we need a full court press.
We're looking bad here.
This investigative journalist is pointing the finger at us.
We've got enormous capabilities at our fingertips.
We need everyone on deck.
We need to prove that we didn't do it to the entire world and show who did it.
I just don't believe with all of the intelligence capability we have, if Biden had done that, we would have found out.
So why doesn't he do it?
Except they didn't want the information.
They don't warrant it.
My point is, why haven't the people who wanted to double check the votes in the last election, why couldn't they use that argument?
I thought the tone was wrong.
I think it should have been a very academically oriented tone of saying, this is the evidence we have.
This is what happened A, B, C, D, and there's shenanigans going on.
Why won't you allow the votes to be counted?
And, of course, it turned into a misfit.
I mean, it became, yeah, it didn't really go at.
But there were some people who didn't want a real vote count.
But the question is, if these aren't true, why don't you have the investigation, really count the votes?
Artificial Technology and Answers00:08:58
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Look at the U.N.
Oh, no, we can't do that.
They probably do better than the way we did it.
You used to work for the vote on that.
Let's put on the clip, next clip, if we can.
I think we need to go ahead one or two.
Let's see.
One more.
No, one more after that.
I'm going to skip all this.
But the Chinese made a good point.
They voted for it.
And they said blocking the council from launching an investigation only raises suspicions that something is hidden behind the scenes.
That's quite obvious.
And the Chinese, I think, know what's going on.
So anyway, we'll keep an eye on that.
It's very, very important.
And we'll also keep an eye, speaking of the Chinese, on the fact that they are importing and hoarding food.
Why are they doing this?
Well, as our sponsors at the Ron Paul Liberty Report this month, 4patriots.com inform us, it's because they know that there is a danger of our food supply being compromised.
And they also know that you can do something about it, which is to secure your own family's food in times of crisis.
They've got some great deals at 4patriots.com.
A three-month survival kit is their most popular package.
They offer free shipping on orders, $97 and above.
They also will give you a 10% discount on your first order if you enter RON when you go to their page.
And I will put a link in when the show's over to how to get to 4patriots.com.
You just have to look at these photos to realize that you're going to have nothing to worry about if crisis hits.
And that could be a snowstorm, could be a hurricane, it could be anything.
It doesn't have to be the end of the world.
And it makes sense to stock up.
So go to our friends at 4patriots.com, get your discount, take care of your family.
Dr. Paul, we've got one other thing to deal with today, and that's the...
Artificial.
Yeah, they're going to replace us.
What I don't understand is everybody I've met, not everybody, but almost everybody I met in Washington, they already knew about artificial intelligence.
I think it's misnamed.
But anyway, it's an interesting subject.
There's a lot of technology involved.
I don't fully understand everything.
I don't want to prohibit any technology, and I want it to be dealt with by contractual arrangements, but not by the politicians.
But now this is getting to be big time, this American, this artificial intelligence.
And there were a lot of articles this week dealing with this, and the big one was if you have it, it could replace 300 million jobs.
We're going to holy men of the world.
We have to oppose this no matter what.
But I got to thinking, you know what is?
How do they get people to endorse COVID or wars overseas?
Fear.
And, you know, this was, wow, this is terrible.
But, you know, my first thought was, you know, this happens all the time to certain degrees.
There were dire predictions about when the tractors and automobiles would come out.
So many people would lose their jobs.
What about the people who took care of the horses?
But they did this and they automatically, you know, if you did this, somebody's going to have to do it.
Somebody's going to have to make stuff.
You know, the computer eliminated a lot of jobs.
How many people make computers?
And I have to use the services of people who know more about computers than I do.
So there's people out there.
But the whole thing is, it gets more complex.
And the answer is so easy.
Let the market function and no fraud and deceit.
And they can keep the government out.
The government should provide the freedom to work these things out.
But this whole thing about 300 million jobs, but they have to, they'll bring China in.
China's the bad people.
And therefore, if you don't support some type of an authoritarian answer to this, then, oh, you're not very patriotic.
You know, you like those Chinese, don't you?
So anyway, I think that it's going to be around.
The one film that came out early on, I thought of, and that was the film that the technology, they were proving the technology, because, holy man, look at this.
Trump's just been arrested.
But I wanted to know whether they had a disclaimer on it.
Did everybody know that it was fake?
But a lot of people saw that.
I'll bet you, whether they said it was fake or not, a lot of people, I'll bet there's some people who still believe it.
So I keep thinking, now, how are you going to handle that problem?
And that is, of course, if they do that and don't have a disclaimer on and pretend that this happened, then, because this could be very devastating to gullible people.
Oh, yeah, he was arrested yesterday.
I saw it on television.
Well, do you think they're going to make AI so we won't have to come in?
They'll just have our AI figures come in here.
We'll be able to sit home in our pajamas?
I don't know.
I still believe in, I don't believe in medicine over the telephone.
Talking to patients is one thing, but medication over the telephone, I still believe in face-to-face.
You know, and I've discovered that's very important for me personally when I deal with financial things.
If I have to talk to the bank, and if I knew more about a computer, I could do everything on there.
Or I could talk to somebody, but you can't get anybody on the phone.
But I still, I listen better, I pay more attention, it sticks with me.
I want to see somebody and talk to them, and it's less artificial.
But it is probably pretty magnificent what they've done.
But they've taken a giant leap already on what, you know, the information, even though we have to use our brain on picking and choosing, the information available on the internet is unbelievable.
You know, when I really woke up about the internet, is I had a subject that was, I said, I wonder what the explanation for this is.
So it was probably something about the Fed.
So I asked the question to get me the answer, and they put my name.
Oh, boy, they've gone over the top now.
I was going to answer my own question.
That makes it easy.
Well, I'm going to just sign off and thank everyone for watching the program.
Please make sure you're subscribed to our channel and please hit like if you can.
It won't cost anything.
Go to ronpaulinstitute.org and sign up to free updates there.
We've got some conferences coming up.
We want to be able to give you some special offers and some updates on how to get to our conferences.
And we thank you very much for watching the show, Dr. Very good.
And I'm going to sign off by once again mentioning a little bit more about our artificial intelligence because I think it's very important because artificial intelligence is going to be very intelligent.
They're going to have so much at hand and they're going to gather things together so much faster and people will be impressed by that.
But the whole thing is the intelligence is available, but it's going to be so much faster.
And yet everything that we have, whether it's nuclear power or whatever, it can be a peaceful tool or it could be a war tool.
And this is the way the computers have been.
We talk about social media.
There's always good and bad, good and evil.
And that's, I think, what life is all about.
And sorting it out is a big deal.
So, yes, I use the internet all the time for getting information.
I'll even watch ordinary television to find out what the enemy is saying.
But hopefully I can sort all that out.
Sometimes you can sort it out by just looking, what channel am I on?
You don't even have to look.
You know what channel it is.
But I think that's prevalent in all life.
You know, even before television and all the technology we had, people had to sort it out.
And I think the people who were miraculous at this, who got it from old books and pamphleteering, were the founders of this country who were able to be better informed.
We should think with all this knowledge and material, we should be better informed.
But I think there'd be a tough contest to beat the information that the founders had in understanding what liberty was all about.
And I think we were very fortunate to have our start in that direction.
Hopefully we can do our share in preserving the true spirit of liberty.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.