Sen. Ron Johnson exposes the "Big Beautiful Bill" as a $1.5 trillion cut in a projected $89 trillion spending spree, warning of a 6% GDP deficit and debt ballooning from $37T to $59T by 2034. He ties inflation to dollar devaluation, criticizes unchecked entitlement growth (from $642B in 2019 to $1.3T in 2024), and questions military spending’s efficacy while linking statins to dementia and vaccines to 38,000+ deaths—including 24% within days of inoculation. Doubting 9/11’s official narrative, he cites Building 7’s unexplained collapse and alleges systemic corruption in healthcare, from suppressed COVID treatments to VAERS data suppression, demanding accountability before economic collapse destabilizes society. [Automatically generated summary]
So you told me something that made me laugh at breakfast in a dark way.
Which is that very few of the people you work with, your colleagues, whose job it is to appropriate money to run the U.S. government, have any idea how much they're appropriating.
They don't know what the numbers are.
Can you walk us through a description of the ignorance of Congress when it comes to numbers?
What has happened over the years is in addition to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, they've slid what should be, in my mind, discretionary spending into mandatory.
And so, I'm the guy that pointed out the conference again.
Do you guys realize in 2019, other mandatory, again, not Social Security, not Medicare, not Medicaid, other mandatory, pretty well runs the gamut of other appropriation accounts.
That was $642 billion.
Last year, fiscal year 2024, that was $1.3 trillion.
This year, it's a little over a trillion.
And that's pretty much, as far as the eye can see, according to CBO, a trillion dollars.
Again, total discretionary spending is about 1.7, but they've literally slid about a trillion dollars now ongoing of other mandatory or what should be discretionary into what they call now other mandatory.
A trillion dollars.
And I don't think anybody was really aware of that either.
I remember somewhere around during the Obama administration, about when I got elected, 2010-2011, we had our first trillion-dollar-a-year deficit in 2009.
I think it was $1.4 trillion.
And we stopped talking about hundreds of billions, which used to move the needle.
To now trillions.
You know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, it just doesn't seem that much.
$4,400 billion spent in 2019.
$7,000 billion spent this year.
Projected to spend $7,300 billion next year.
And now let's kind of bring this back to the debate that we're talking about on the One Big Beautiful Bill.
So, we've got a structural deficit of around 6% right now, CBO's projecting over the next 10 years.
6%.
So, federal revenue will be, according to CBO, 18.1, even though it's about 17.1, but they're projecting that we're going to have an automatic tax increase next year, so they bumped that to 18.1.
And federal spending is going to be about 23.4, 23.5%.
By the way, put this in an even better historical context.
In 1930, less than 100 years ago, the federal government spent 3.1% of our GDP.
State and local governments back then spent 9.1%.
So that was pretty much the vision of our founding fathers A limited federal government You know, within the constraints of the enumerated powers And most governing at the You know, we've blown that up.
Now the federal government's spending close to 24%.
State and local governments are over 16%.
So now total government spending is about 40%.
It's three times what it was back less than 100 years ago.
And of course, that's the death knell of a democracy is when...
And what they don't realize, the expenses, it's costing them all because the massive deficit spending, because we're not taking enough revenue to cover the expenditures.
I remember I announced in April of 2010, started my campaign in basically June of 2010, doing parades.
And what I would shout is, this is a fight for freedom.
We're mortgaging our children's future.
It's wrong.
It's immoral.
It has to stop.
That was my campaign theme.
Again, we were $14 trillion in debt, spending $3.5 trillion.
Now, we're almost $37 trillion in debt.
We're spending $7,000 billion, $7 trillion.
And CBO projects over the next 10 years, we will add another $22 trillion to the debt.
That's what our projected debt.
Again, that's assuming about a $4 trillion increase because taxes are scheduled to automatically increase.
If those taxes don't increase, first of all, I'm not sure you get the full $4 trillion, but again, take $4 trillion away if we extend current tax law, which is I'm in favor of that.
I don't want to increase anybody's taxes.
But I don't think this is necessarily time to...
But anyway, so we are projecting deficits for the next 10 years of a minimum of $2.2 trillion, and I would argue that is a rosy scenario.
And particularly when you take a look at what they've done with the one big beautiful bill, they're not seriously reducing spending to what I've been calling for as a pre-pandemic level.
Again, The danger of spouting out too many numbers here, I just want to put this in perspective.
President Obama, over the course of his eight years, his average deficit was $910 billion.
Over the last, and I want to quick do this so I'm accurate, over the last four years of his administration, it was about $550 billion.
Okay?
So, half a trillion dollar deficit over his last four years.
President Trump came into office in his first three years, the average deficit was about $800 billion.
So he bumped up Obama's four-year average from $550 to $800.
Then COVID hit and we had a deficit of $3.1 trillion just that one year.
Now, what we should have done in 2020, the pandemic was over.
We didn't have to keep...
Normal unemployment, somewhere between five and six.
But within a few months, it was around 11 and then returned to pretty much normal early in 2021.
We didn't have to keep stimulating the economy.
But Biden did.
Biden averaged $1.9 trillion per year in deficit.
So Obama, when he left his last four years, Trump, before the pandemic, a little more than $800 billion per year.
Biden, in his four years, went up to $1.9 trillion.
And now CBO is projecting, and again, a rosy scenario, that we'll be averaging $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years.
We'll take our debt from $37 trillion up to $59 trillion.
And if we...
Take away $4 trillion in revenue, roughly.
Add another $4 trillion.
The spending cuts they're talking about, they're paltry.
Friend of the show and Donald Trump's Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Casey Means, is working to solve that crisis.
She's got a new healthcare technology company.
It's called Levels.
It's got an easy-to-use app, simple and effective programs.
It helps you get a clear picture of what's going on inside you, inside your body.
It helps you maximize your energy, manage your weight, exercise more effectively, and it works.
We've heard a ton of stories, people on our show who work here, changing their lives, getting their cholesterol under control, improving their diets, making their movement much more efficient, their exercise better.
Levels membership comes with a 28-marker cardiometabolic blood test.
It gives you a comprehensive view of your health and clear guidance for how to make it better.
You can also get the extended panel, which gives you an even more detailed view with 100-plus biomarkers.
We just received word that Levels is offering this show's listeners annual memberships with an additional two months free through the website levels.link slash tucker.
Yeah, and that's why you had 40-year high inflation.
So that way I would consider the chronic debt crisis.
It just continues.
And it's the danger.
We have not tamed inflation yet.
We've tamed it, but we haven't conquered it.
So I think that's always on the horizon, particularly if we continue deficit spend.
Particularly if the bond markets continue to react as they are, keep driving interest rates up higher, and you start increasing the amount of interest expense, crowding out other spending.
So an acute debt crisis would be where you have a bond market failure.
And like what happened in Greece, all of a sudden you can't sell your debt.
So you either print the money, which sparks another round of 40, 50-year high inflation, devaluing the currency rapidly.
You know, we're not necessarily immune to hyperinflation.
I would have thought we would have experienced it by now, but we've experienced it instead as, again, 40-year high inflation, the devaluation of the currency.
I mean, I think that's pretty shocking when you take a look at that.
It's a dollar just 11 years ago.
It was only worth 74 cents.
You know, six years, it's only worth 80 cents.
That's an amazing level of devaluation.
Now, it's not even close to hyperinflation where, you know, You've got inflation rates of hundreds of percent.
Well, you have a great deal of turmoil in your society.
It won't be pleasant.
It's what we need to try and avoid.
And by the way, why I'm not in a full-blown panic, people like Art Laffer, economist of the Laffer curve, he does correctly point out, America has enormous wealth.
I mean, hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of wealth.
So $37 trillion in relationship to hundreds of trillion dollars worth of wealth, that's manageable.
It's just like if you're a billionaire but you don't work, you can have some pretty large mortgages on homes, but...
I mean, it's not irrelevant debt-to-GDP ratio, and we do have massive wealth, but we need to manage the cash flow problem here, too, as well as just the pernicious impact of all these transfer payments.
Providing encouragement for people not to work.
There's a great article written, I think, in 2017 by Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, our miserable 21st century, talking about how 20% of working-age men are permanently out of the workforce, on Medicaid, using the Medicaid card to buy opiate drugs to help finance their living.
All kinds, all those pernicious impacts of a society where we're living.
We actually incentivize them not to.
To my mind, that's one of the biggest problems we have with a big welfare.
And, you know, we were talking earlier when I first entered this political realm, going to dairy breakfast, the first issue I heard in Wisconsin was, you know, we don't have enough workers.
Now, I come from a manufacturing background where for 20 years.
Which is why I always kind of scratch my head.
Listen, there are certainly products that we have offshored that we need to reshore.
You know, things that are strategic, that impact our national security.
But right now, I think our biggest problem is we don't have enough workers.
If you bring all this manufacturing back to America, who's going to work the factories?
And we certainly shouldn't be bringing back high labor content product.
I think you need to diversify your supply base.
You can't be so dependent on an adversary like China.
Again, one of the reasons I'm digging my heels in is the...
The only number you heard about in the whole House debate here was $1.5 trillion, which sounds like a lot, right?
I mean, $1.5 trillion in spending reduction.
And, of course, they're focusing on programs like Medicaid.
The main problem with that is Obamacare, which is now called Medicaid expansion, along states to gain the system, putting at risk Medicaid for the truly vulnerable.
But that's all you really heard about.
You don't ever put that in context.
$1.5 trillion compared to $89 trillion spending over the next 10 years, it's barely a rounding error.
We haven't been talking about the massive annual deficits.
Well, again, it was really sparked by the pandemic.
Yeah, I'll give the Tea Party movement a fair amount of credit.
You know, I ran because we were Mortgage Energy Kids Future.
We were running deficits for, you know, I think three years in a row, over a trillion dollars.
But once we got to town in 2011, we started having these budget debates.
We had divided government.
Obama didn't get everything he wanted.
We did something called the Budget Control Act, which literally reduced discretionary spending for three years in a row until we learned how to weasel around it.
So we pretty well flattened out federal government spending at about $3.5 trillion for five or six or seven years.
And then the last couple of years of the Obama administration started creeping up.
And then under Trump, it went from about $4 trillion to $4.1 to $4.4.
And then it went to $6.5, and we've never looked back.
And the analogy I use there is, I don't know of an American family, if they had an illness and they had to borrow $50,000 to pay for the medical bills, if that family member got well, you wouldn't keep borrowing $50,000 and spend at that level.
but that's exactly what we've done.
And like nobody, It doesn't seem radical.
And I've laid out options, you know, Clinton, Obama, Trump.
So, I mean, what Biden should have done, we overspent in 2020.
When we first were talking about that CARES Act, it was like $750 billion, which, you know, I knew we had to do something fast and massive so markets wouldn't collapse.
Within like a week or two, that went up to like $2.2 trillion.
We sent out direct payment checks to 166 million Americans three times way late, way after unemployment had already returned from the 25 million person high.
Again, 25 million people unemployed when normally you're at five or six.
We sent out direct payment checks to 166 million Americans three times.
So we way overspent even in 2020.
So you had trillions of dollars sloshing around the economy as you come into 2021.
The economy is coming roaring back because you have all this pent-up demand and all these dollars sloshing around.
The last thing you should have done is add more fuel to the fire.
That's what Biden and Democrats did.
Again, on average, $1.9 trillion of deficit spending over the next four years.
We never came down off of that $6.5 trillion, a little bit, $6.2, $6.3, but then started going back up again.
And that's really the moment, that's when a bass boat suddenly cost $100,000, or your car cost $90,000, you know, brand new Suburban is $80,000 or whatever.
That's when the country became obviously unaffordable, I think, unless I misremember.
Well, so if you're living on different transfer payments or different types of welfare benefits, you may not get those.
You know, you can't borrow more money, so you're going to have to take what money we spend on other government programs and we'll have to service our debt.
Again, we will lose our position of the world's reserve currency and we'll lose our ability to print dollars that people accept.
I mean, it's a marvelous thing that we just print dollars, we can send them overseas, and people will produce products and ship them over here, high-quality products at pretty low cost.
I think it's one of the reasons we've been able to keep inflation in check, producing all these massive deficits over the last couple decades, because we do import a lot of products.
You know, billions of people either un or underemployed around the world.
We provide the capital.
You know, they produce the factories, they produce the goods, and then we just give them, you know, paper.
It's fiat currency.
You know, we print it, we keep printing it, and it's been working out pretty well.
At some point in time, that gravy train might stop.
I asked them to find all these Republican leaders that have, you know, talked about balancing the budget.
You know, we have a spending problem.
It starts out with President Trump saying in the State of the Union, I'm going to do something we haven't done in 24 years, balance the federal budget.
Then every Republican leader, some form of, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
In those clips, we have Elon Musk saying, if we don't fix this, There won't be money left over for anything.
I think my best guess is conservatives in the House, who I love, didn't want to be blamed if this thing failed.
So they said, well, listen, in order for us to accept a $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, we've got to get at least $1.5 trillion in savings, spending cuts.
I don't think they were looking at the big picture.
I think they just pulled a big...
I said, listen, you set the bar way too low, you guys.
This is completely inadequate.
They set the bar way too low that it should have been easy to meet it, quite honestly.
But even that was difficult because they didn't go through what I would consider the right kind of process.
So maybe we can shift in terms of what we have to do, what I'm trying to accomplish here, and my digging my heels in.
Doge has kind of shown us what we can do here.
We've never had a process to control spending in the federal government.
We don't have a balanced budget requirement.
I didn't realize this, just found out.
Do you know they established the appropriation committees because the authorizing committees were big spenders?
So the appropriation committees were supposed to be the control on the big spenders.
Well, that didn't work.
The Budget Control Act of 1974 didn't work.
Simpson-Bowles didn't work.
The Budget Control Act didn't work.
It did for three years, but then we weaseled our way around it.
So what process could possibly work to control spending?
Well, first of all, you have to know the numbers.
You have to understand what a deep hole we're in and have a commitment to address it.
But DOGE has pretty well shown us how to do it.
I come from the private sector.
I think I probably spent more time either analyzing my department head budgets or my own overall company budget than Congress in total spends analyzing the $7,000 billion budget of the federal government.
So Dozier's shown is if you go...
If you eliminated it, my guess is most Americans wouldn't even know it's eliminated, but the only people that would know would be the grifters who have been sucking down the waste, fraud, and abuse.
So that's why I've always been supportive of multiple steps.
Reconciliation process here.
I was always recommending three steps.
First step, give President Trump the funding on the border.
Defense, bank, $850 billion of real savings, not make-believe, you know, now.
And Lindsey Graham agreed to this, $85.5 billion each year for four years to pay for the four years' worth of spending.
And then extend that out 10 years, that gives you 850.
That's more than half of what the House budget reconciliation can do.
Second step, I would just extend current tax law.
If we would have been smart enough in 2017, had somebody like Chairman Crapo who really came up with this idea of let's just use current policy for taxes.
Then we can make this stuff permanent.
You should never pass, in my mind, a tax law that automatically expires.
Just creates all these fiscal cliffs and puts all kinds of uncertainty in the economy.
So if the tax cuts are ending and you want to extend them, well, you're scoring them the fact that they are going to end, so now to extend them, it's going to be a trillion-dollar score.
So then you've got to pay for it, and it's hard to pay for it.
And so that's how it was all scored back in 2017, where if we would just use current policy, if we use current policy now, we can just extend current tax law, and there's no score.
So that's really what we're doing now.
But we have to recognize when you're comparing to the CBO budget, CBO budgets is assuming it does, taxes do increase and bring in about another $4 trillion worth of revenue.
You said that the problem with democracy is once the majority figures out they can just steal money, then you're just headed to the cliff and there's no pulling back.
He is such a unique individual, unique political figure, unique president.
He is doing things that only he would do.
Nobody else would do it.
And it's things that have to be done.
Okay, so I'm so supportive of most of what he's doing.
But this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here.
We've never had such an unprecedented level of spending.
Returning to a reasonable level is just so common sense and not that hard.
It's not going to be easy.
But what I've done in laying out those pre-pandemic options, go back to Bill Clinton.
1998, when we actually had a surplus for the first time in 1969.
I don't think we spent too little in 1969 or 1998.
Obama in 2014 or Trump in 2019.
There are three options.
Leave Social Security, Medicare, and interest as they are.
Spend what you need to spend.
But for all the other outlays, you just increase them based on population growth and inflation.
A very reasonable control, right?
You end up somewhere between $5.5 and $6.5 trillion.
Now, I would go back to Clinton.
Recognizing that 9-11 happened after that, so you probably have to plus up defense, although I'd like to hone how we spend our defense dollars.
I think we talked about that earlier.
I don't think we spend them well.
But somewhere between $5.5 and $6.5 trillion.
And then I've printed out the budgets, a couple thousand lines, and then go through those budgets line by line and just ask the question, well, this is what Clinton was spending, fully inflated.
Why are we spending this much more?
Or this is what Obama spent.
Or Trump.
Why is it so much more?
Explain yourself.
Like I said, in business, this would be simple.
I'd tell my manager that I said you could increase your budgets based on inflation and the number of customers you serve.
Do it so it doesn't harm our business, so it doesn't harm people's lives.
Just do it, because what we were spending 1998, 2014, 2019, I think was probably pretty adequate.
And by the way, if you go through it line by line, there will be lines I think you look at, scratch your head and go, we probably shouldn't be spending anything on that.
I think Doge has taught us that.
So again, Trump, again, I think that was brilliant, what Trump and Elon did with Doge.
But we haven't realized those savings yet.
I think we stopped spending on contracts, but unless we set up and pass a rescission package on the discretionary end, unless we take whatever they discovered in mandatory and eliminate that through the reconciliation process, those monies will just be sitting out there unobligated, and some Democrat Congress and some Democrat president will spend it without even having to appropriate it.
I think the military-industrial complex has way too much power.
I would love, and we should do this, is we should go back, at least as far back as Vietnam, and analyze each one of these foreign entanglements, each of these foreign wars.
And ask ourselves and gather some basic information.
First, what was our goal going in?
Secondly, you know, what did it cost in human life, ours, and our adversary, our enemies?
What did it cost in terms of dollars?
And then the final question is, did we accomplish the objective?
I think if you do that, and I hate to say this because it's true.
I mean, what have we accomplished with the Ukraine war right now?
We have actually solidified the relationship between Russia and China and North Korea and Iran.
That's completely opposite of what our goals ought to be.
So it's just not working.
I mean, we have not accomplished these goals.
They've been miserable failures.
How many people died in Iraq?
Based on that, false intelligence.
The best book I read on Afghanistan is written by special ops folks, and they basically made the point that we'd pretty well accomplish what we need to accomplish in Afghanistan before Tommy Frank ever put a boot on the ground.
We said, hey, listen, you guys harbored Al-Qaeda.
Don't do it anymore.
Kind of punish the Taliban, and that's probably where we should have left that.
So a new report, which you may not have seen because it was suppressed, shows the abortion pill is 10 times more dangerous than the FDA claims.
Not just dangerous to the baby that it kills, but to the women who take it.
11% of women who take the pill experience, quote, serious adverse effects.
Why is it still on the market?
Because it's abortion-related, and our leaders love abortion.
It'd be easy to turn that figure into a rant about abortion, but there's another angle to this debate that's not talked about enough, and that's what a blessing babies are.
People scoff about children like they're some kind of plague, but in reality, the exact opposite is true.
On your deathbed, you will care only about your children.
They are a gift unlike any other gift.
They are the supreme gift.
Our friends at Preborn understand this, and they're working around the clock to save as many unborn lives as they can.
Their ultrasound helps guide thousands of future mothers to choose life through knowledge, and that's possible because people like you support them.
To help, simply dial pound 250, say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250, the word baby, or visit preborn.com slash Tucker.
We are proud to partner with Preborn.
Well, given all of that, and given that no one has ever been punished, no high-ranking military officer I'm aware of has ever been punished for any of these failures.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was humiliating and costly, and it was just a disaster in every way.
And the only guy who's punished is Stu Schiller, who's a Marine officer, who points out that it wasn't a success.
But the architects were rewarded.
So given all of that, why are we sending these people?
And, you know, there's some just basic metrics people use, like percent of GDP spending on defense.
We're kind of a low level, and we should be, you know, we should be, I mean, we've got right now, you know, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, McConnell, they want to dedicate 5% of GDP to defense.
So where are you going to get that money?
I mean, I realize we're kind of down at historic low levels, but it's still a trillion dollars.
Where are we spending it?
That's why I would have loved to have seen somebody like Eric Prince, who wrote an excellent article, Too Big to Win, become Defense Secretary and really take a look at how are we fighting these wars?
If you're a university, a church, something like that, you bring in revenue, you spend it, you've got no profit.
You're a non-profit.
So, no, the other reason I wanted to split this into two parts is, you know, we need to take the time to go line by line, to do a doge impact on the entire budget.
To find the outrageous spending, eliminate what people won't even notice, but also to simplify and rationalize our tax system.
Don't try and socially and economically engineer the tax code.
We're terrible at it.
You're not that smart.
So raise the revenue you need.
Try not to do any economic or social harm.
So that would imply a very simple tax system.
They always say lower the rates, brown the base.
But fair.
Personally, I've done well in this country.
I don't mind having a progressive tax rate.
I really don't.
Certainly exempting a certain amount of income so people can live without having to pay tax and stuff.
But within those confines, keep it as absolutely simple as possible.
Now, one thing I know is there's nothing simple about simplifying the tax.
I mean, everybody's got their little tax break.
And, you know, even right now, one of the reasons I'm not looking forward to this ordeal that's going to come about over the next couple of weeks as I dig my heels in is, you know, there are a lot of people that support President Trump and have supported me.
They want no tax in overtime.
By the way, if all you live on is Social Security, the chance of you paying a dollar tax on that is almost infinitesimal.
So we don't tax Social Security right now.
Let's face it, if you have Social Security and you have income above that, why should you exempt some of your income?
I think us oldsters have stolen enough from younger generations.
I mean, you see the wealth transfer.
I used to have a chart on this, but the transfer of wealth from young to old over the decades, it's literally immoral.
Again, trying to use the tax code to try and come up with some way to incentivize growth.
Just keep it simple, uncomplicated, rational.
Income is income.
Basic principles like wherewithal to pay.
Approach all of these things with with principles because the big problem in the house I would think the goal of this Republican budget reconciliation would be to reduce the deficits.
Seems like in the House, the only goal was to pass one big, beautiful bill by Memorial Day.
Now, he said in the State of the Union he's going to balance the budget.
Fine.
But I know in his mind he thinks he's going to balance the budget with tariff revenue.
I'm sorry, tariffs are a tax.
We're not quite sure who pays them.
Whereas the foreign companies, the foreign countries, uh, the U S consumer, For what?
Again, there's no doubt there's certain products, high-end semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, rare earth minerals.
We got to be basic in those.
We have to produce these here just from a standpoint of national security.
Is there a better way of doing that than just generalized increasing a tax, which is what a tariff is?
I would argue there probably is.
How about this?
We just give you a tax holiday for five or ten years.
Again, you've got a high-end semiconductor plan in a different country.
We're not collecting the tax on it anyway.
It's no skin off our you-know-whats to just come on over here, produce that here.
We'll just give you a ten-year tax.
Talk to the people who are going to invest in it.
What's it going to take?
How long a tax holiday?
What's reasonable?
Incentivize it that way.
But don't incentivize it by mucking up our tax code or, I'd say even worse, things like the CHIPS Act where you pay money to grifters that don't really fulfill their end of the bargain.
We're just not good at doing these things.
The free market's not perfect, but it is the most efficient allocator of capital.
So, I mean...
You're pretty good.
Plus, permitting reform, if you want to do precursor chemicals for pharmaceuticals, I mean, you've got to permit the refineries.
You've got to permit the mines if you're going to mine rare earth minerals and if you're going to refine those things.
So, again, we have to look at this, but it requires presidential leadership to go make the case, the logical case.
And that...
But you're not going to sell me just by saying, you've got to pass one big, beautiful bill.
I'm tired of the rhetoric.
I'm not prone to slogans.
It's like, lay out the case.
If you can lay out the case that we are promoting growth, and this is what the revenue is going to be, and this is how we actually shrink the deficit, and this is how we avoid a debt crisis, I want to be on board.
Well, it's interesting, there's a fair number that are coalescing around the number, and I've never really, I've laid out options, but I've never dug my heels in on a number for a pre-pandemic level spending.
But I've laid it out, I think, logically enough, most people are, you know, there's a pretty big group say that it should be no more than $6.5 trillion in the next fiscal year.
So that implies about an $800 billion difference between what we're expected to spend, which would be about $8 trillion of money.
It's a long ways from the $1.5 trillion.
Again, what I've always said is, I need a commitment to return to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending, realizing we have to get the votes, but maybe even more importantly, a process to achieve and maintain it.
And that's that line, do the work.
But it'll take time to do the work.
But we need a commitment.
I can't do it.
I don't have access to all the information.
I mean, those are the guys that know their stuff.
And then have this as a review panel and bring up, just like in business, budget review meeting, bring up the department heads with their budget gurus and stuff and explain it.
Go line by line.
Again, why are you spending so much more than a fully inflated Bill Clinton level?
Or Obama or Trump?
I mean, explain yourself.
Why should we be spending even a dime on this category right here?
So you've got, you know, top lines within the federal government, more than 2,000 lines.
Under each one of those lines, there's probably hundreds of lines between all those.
So you've got a lot of work to do.
But it doesn't get done if you try and rush this thing through.
And now by July 4th would be the goal for the Senate.
So I want to break this up into two parts to give us the time.
Right now, I think I've got at least four that will dig their heels in and say, again, we want to see it succeed.
We want to pass this.
We want to pass something.
We'll pass what must be passed now.
Again, we've already set this up in the Senate with our budget resolution to provide the defense and border funding plus $850 billion in savings.
Tack that on to the House where we extend current tax law and...
By the way, that's going to be a massive amount.
It should shock everybody.
What we're going to have to increase the debt ceiling for just to get us by another year.
Probably $2 to $2.5 trillion.
Because we have to refill the extraordinary measures, the buckets they've taken from to extend the debt ceiling.
We're right now burning about half a trillion dollars a quarter.
So you're talking, if you extend it next year, five quarters at half a trillion dollars, that's $250.
$2.5 trillion just to get us by into next year.
That should shock everybody.
That's my whole purpose here is we haven't talked about the numbers.
We haven't put this in context of the big mess we're in, the deep hole we've dug ourselves.
I'm just going to force that debate.
I'm not trying to be obstinate.
I'll probably be accused of grandstanding.
I'd rather not do this.
I'd rather have the house having really succeeded and the president totally behind, again, returning to pre-pandemic level spending, but somebody's got to do it.
Since we launched ALP, we've had four flavors, but we are proud to announce ALP has a brand new flavor, one of several we'll be rolling out over the next year or so, and it is Sweet Nectar.
I have personally tested this product two at a time, and it's excellent.
Sweet Nectar, the new flavor out from Al.
Really, really good.
You can order it in bulk by the palate if you want.
I mean, you know, NIH reviewed me because it thought it might have been Havana syndrome.
But as I got involved in the whole COVID, and I got to meet all these doctors who had a second opinion that weren't going along with the narrative, that had the courage and compassion to actually treat COVID patients that took seriously the vaccine injured, it just connects you to...
And one of them, you know, laid out the listed side effects of statins and one of them is sudden hearing.
A lot of people are thinking it could be a main driver of Alzheimer's.
But again, they'll never admit it because that's a multi-billion dollar industry right there.
Zantac and Prilosec and then Nexium, which by the way were great in terms of relieving symptoms, but also has some pretty nasty side effects.
So again, reading these alternate opinions on stuff, Hydroxychloric, no, hydrochloric acid has been known for decades to be a gestivated.
The theory behind what causes acid reflux is you don't have enough stomach acid.
You're not digesting the food properly.
You're not providing the signal to the, I guess, sphincter muscle, whatever, that closes your stomach off from your esophagus.
So what you do to solve it is you introduce more acid.
You know, in the form of a natural vegetarian-based product, and that's called hydrochloric acid.
So I take one tablet now before my evening meal.
I miss it probably at least half the time.
I don't have it anymore.
So I don't take any of that stuff anymore.
This worked far better.
It's just completely natural.
It's completely opposite of what all these other patented So it's just HCL, and they call it baiting or something like that, but it's just an over-the-counter supplement, and it's worked great.
So I will get all kinds of guff for talking about this stuff, but it's just...
Because that's what they do.
This is the...
It will be because the pharmaceutical industrial complex, again, it's all about drugs that can treat chronic illness, which is why you can't talk about these things, which is why they completely sabotaged the early treatment of COVID using things like hydroxychloroquine and particularly ivermectin, which I heard, because I was at the tip of the spear.
I got all kinds of people.
Calling me, what doctors would treat this?
And so I heard the amazing stories of recovery with ivermectin.
We will hold a hearing on this.
There's one attorney that got called in to sue a hospital because somebody's loved one was in the hospital and they were begging them to use ivermectin.
The hospital just refused.
So this lawyer went in there and sued, was successful, saved that person's life.
So in the end, because he did this, I think he had something, this is a rough number, something like 200 families that he went to court for to force the hospitals to use ivermectin or budesonide or some of these other drugs, right?
He won about half the cases.
Of those 100 cases, I think he lost a couple of patients.
There's a great documentary, VAX-3, that really goes through this and just talks about the hospital protocols using remdesivir, which the nurses called run death, death is near.
The Anthony Fauci said this is the treatment, even though whatever study it was, they changed the endpoint from death to just days in hospital.
Which I don't think even that was true.
The number of conflicts of the people reviewing that that were associated with Gilead.
I mean, the WHO recommended against using remdesivir, and yet we still use it.
I mean, you see what happened during COVID, thoroughly corrupt.
And, you know, we just had our hearing on the signals on myocarditis, which they completely downplayed, hid for months.
I ran in 2010 after I'd given a Tea Party speech and two things I said, which my campaign guy said, never say that again, is I defended big oil and big pharma.
Am I the only guy that likes a gas station in every corner of the town because I run it down to empty?
Or am I the only one that wants a life-saving new drug?
But we do need, and this is what, again, I give Bobby Kennedy and Trump so much credit for laying aside their political differences, joining an alliance to focus on a problem.
That they both agree that needs to be solved, and it's chronic illness.
Bobby Kennedy says 75% of our healthcare spending is on chronic illness.
And so I just laid out, you know, I had a chronic condition.
Acid reflux, GERD.
And kept treating with all these pharmaceuticals.
They weren't cheap.
You know, Prilosec, Nexium, they're not cheap.
Leviated the symptoms, but didn't fix it.
I go to something that just is far cheaper.
I think works better.
I don't have to even take it every day.
I think I've probably replenished the acid in my stomach, which declines with age.
So, I mean, every other day I take one, if I remember it as an evening meal, pretty well solved the condition.
I have cured a chronic.
I'm not treating it anymore.
I was treating it with Prilosec and Nexium.
I pretty well cured it.
Now, I still take this because it's a digestive aid.
Why can't, if Clinton allowed pharma to advertise, allowed pharma to buy the media, which they did, I can verify that since I worked there, why can't that be undone as easily?
But I thought that was a very interesting comment.
They don't want to know the root cause.
Because if they find out it is some pharmaceutical product or some pesticide or some herbicide or some toxin in our food, that's going to disrupt multi-billion dollar business models.
And those businesses are fully engaged in lobbying.
They're fully engaged and have captured our regulatory agencies.
I'm talking about this all day.
Listen, government is power, right?
That's a pretty good definition of government.
It's power.
And as Lord Acton aptly stated, power corrupts.
And so what has happened over the decades is these businesses, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them being over-regulated by big government, right?
They're smart, especially the big ones.
They got smart people there.
So not only do they figure out how to survive with over-regulation, they learn how to capture it.
And then they capture it for their benefit to the detriment of their competitors, particularly smaller competitors, and detriment of the American public.
And that is what has happened, I would say, across the board in government, whether it's pharmaceuticals, whether it's military industrial complex, whether it's our big food.
That's, in my mind, that's the hope.
That's what I want to see Donald Trump defeat.
And you first defeat it by exposing it.
People have to understand this is what's happened, but certainly what I learned, you learned, Bobby Kennedy learned during COVID, it is very difficult to defeat back then what I called the COVID cartel.
So these would be American citizens who obeyed their government and took a shot that they were required to take on pain and punishment and then were injured by or killed by that shot.
They've received almost no attention.
You're literally one of the only lawmakers who ever mentions them.
You've had a bunch of hearings.
You know them personally.
Describe the scale of the injury and death from the COVID shots, if you would.
Now, some conditions are mandatory to be reported, but they're still not.
The two...
Sometimes you don't connect the dots.
So on VAERS system, to date, worldwide, there's over 38,000 deaths associated with COVID vaccine, and 24% of those to date either occur on the date of vaccination or within one or two days.
I mean, nobody wants to admit that they maybe should have taken a little more time, gotten a little more educated about this experimental COVID injection.
They don't want to think there may be a ticking time bomb in terms of turbo cancers.
But again, more and more evidence is coming out that in tumors, they find the spike protein.
The spike protein, as well as the modified RNA, it's not true mRNA, that does degrade very rapidly, circulating the body for months, possibly years.
Again, they find the spike protein in autopsied hearts, in tumors.
We know from people like Kevin McKernan that there was DNA contamination.
It can't integrate into the cell.
Could cause cancer.
Again, I hate talking about it because I know 70-80% of Americans got vaccinated.
It was regulations, kind of the wink-wink nod to get it passed, that they promulgated regulations that actually provide that liability protection.
It wasn't just for the three vaccines, I think, at the time that were on the schedule.
it exempted all future vaccines, which has led to an explosion.
Because again, the greatest risk, Yeah, I mean, you just keep cranking these things out.
They aren't tested in a true placebo-controlled trial.
the trial period as meager as it is only lasts for a week.
It's just it's This is, you know, Aaron Seery testified at our hearing last week, and he's expert at all this in terms of the American public would be shocked at how little testing these vaccines actually receive.
But you have this, it's almost a religion around the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
I mean, I understand that it's such an elegant solution, isn't it?
100% safe shot in the arm and you never have to worry about that.
Because there were so many injuries manifesting themselves before that law was passed that those manufacturers are going to be sued out of existence.
And again, the religion and faith that these vaccines are just so crucial.
Even though you read a book like Dissolving Illusions, you realize the main reason most of these diseases were eradicated is because we no longer live in squalor.
So, I mean, you see the chart coming down here and then the vaccines start occurring here and, yeah, the tail goes out and, you know, vaccines may have eradicated some of these diseases.
I don't deny that.
But the main thing is we, you know, we actually improve sanitation.
And what we are ignoring now is treatment.
And that came out with COVID.
It's like, I mean, I couldn't, you know, the reason I got into this is, I'm the only guy holding hearings on this stuff because none of this stuff makes sense.
So why are they just pillorying something like hydroxychloroquine?
I mean, if it works, give it a shot.
I mean, what's the harm?
It's incredibly safe.
Ivermectin.
But that was completely sabotaged all for the purpose of forcing this injection, what they call the vaccine, on everybody as a solution.
Why aren't we talking about treating disease?
Measles.
Why aren't we focusing on treatment?
Again, I'm telling these doctors, generally a very treatable disease.
Just about any disease can kill you, okay?
But a lot of diseases can be treated.
We ought to be focusing a lot more, from my standpoint, on treatment as opposed to loading up our children, our infants, with dozens and dozens of doses and not even asking the question.
So, okay, have these been thoroughly tested?
I mean, have we tested?
Giving multiple vaccines at the same dose.
I mean, every time you put a vaccine in somebody's arm, you're messing with their immune system.
Why do we have all these autoimmune diseases nowadays?
You know, what is causing autism?
I mean, we're just not able to ask the question because, to get back to my witness in that last event, is they don't want to know.
And I mean, watching what's happened to you has really been the greatest of all wake-up calls for me because I would say of the senators I know, which is most of them, you're like the most temperamentally moderate and accountant, number-based, like not a wild-eyed radical at all.
At all.
And there are some crazy people in the Congress.
You're not.
You're the opposite.
You like budgets and stuff.
So if they're calling you a wacko, they discredit themselves.
I was on a telephone town hall, and this is when Omicron was ramping up.
And this is already by the time we've got a partisan split on COVID, right?
I mean, Republicans don't wear masks, Democrats do.
You know, Republicans aren't freaked out by it, Democrats are.
But again, I'm talking to these doctors.
I know they were...
It was more difficult to treat.
They had to double and triple the dose of ivermectin to have it actually be effective.
So nobody knew what was going to happen with Omicron.
I think people were thinking it looked like it was going to be more mild.
I'm on a telephone town hall with my constituents, probably a couple thousand.
I said, listen, take this seriously.
COVID can still be a deadly disease.
So whether you're vaccinated or not vaccinated, there are things you can do.
Vitamin D. You can gargle.
You know, that helps reduce the viral load.
Within 10 minutes, my comms team were being contacted by national news outlets saying, what's this that we're hearing that Johnson's saying that Listerine will replace the vaccine?
Now, of course, I said nothing of the kind.
I just said, you know, there are things you can do to help protect yourself, you know.
And they actually went so far as to go up to the governor of said well when batshit crazy knocks on your door slam the door in his face I mean that was the so again what That was what Sununu said?
The problem is that it does make everyone into a nihilist.
It's happened to me.
I've tried and fight it.
And, you know, you just, like, don't go to the doctor, for example, which is where I am, or I know a lot of people like that.
And that's, you know, you should probably go to the doctor.
I mean, you know, get a checkup.
That's okay.
But they've so devalued their own currency.
They've so discredited themselves through lying and just the most evil kind of like blaming you for their problems that it's, I don't know, it's had all these effects on our society that I don't think we've.
unidentified
even grappled with well i try and tell established
members of the medical profession they ought to be concerned that a very large percentage of american people simply don't trust them anymore like at all and that's not good that's not good you know i think they're evil when i was when i was chairman of the european subcommittee on foreign relations we had i think gary kasparov come in and talking about russian disinformation yeah and i thought it was interesting because it's they're not russia is not trying to convince you of something with their disinformation they just want people not to trust
But it's got to be based on science, and that's why I really think the root cause, I mean, the thing that Bobby Kennedy must address is we have to restore integrity to science.
You know, this is, you know, Eisenhower warned us about this in his farewell address.
It doesn't give us much coverage, but Public financing of science and research would lead to a scientific and technological elite to drive public policy.
I would view that corrupted.
So when you pay for science, you get the result you want, whether it's climate change, whether it's vaccines, whether it's drugs and that type of thing.
We need to restore integrity.
Peer review is a joke.
Peer reviewers are basically volunteering.
So you'll get peer reviewers who might have a different paper themselves, and they just discredit that.
So what is truth?
So you have to restore integrity to science.
There's got to be, like, everybody from opposing sides have to be at the table.
You've got to make your data available.
Some of these studies are published.
Nobody gets to see the data.
So that, I think, is the first step that Bobby has to accomplish, is try and restore integrity, particularly for government-funded science.
Well, you tried the other day to raise science-based questions about a pivotal event in American history 24 years ago, 9-11, and you asked a question that I think any honest person would ask, like, Building 7 was never hit by a plane.
Why did it fall down in exactly the same way the first two towers did?
That shouldn't be verboten.
So you asked that question.
I want to read the response from a Republican in the House, a new member called Mike Lawler, I guess from New York.
And he said this.
I don't know if you know him.
You probably don't.
He just got there.
Quote, Senator Johnson should stop peddling conspiracy theories about the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history and one that forever altered the lives of so many of my fellow New Yorkers.
Crap like this dishonors and disrespects the innocent lives lost, our brave first responders, and all families and survivors who still carry the pain of 9-11 each and every day.
So I think...
He doesn't really seem to represent New York anyway.
But whatever.
The point is, why would he attack you personally for asking the most obvious question ever, one rooted in science, which is, how did this happen?
What is so off-base about that is the only reason I'm looking at this is because the then-chairman of the permanent subcommittee investigation, now I'm chair, but, you know, Senator Blumenthal, he wanted to do this investigation on Saudi's negotiation with PGA.
And, you know, he's doing it because he's from Connecticut and got 9-11 families.
And the fact that there's so many unanswered questions that the Bush administration was so resistant to even a 9-11 commission that the commissioners claimed that it was set up to fail.
That you've got a Bob Carey who's since passed said this is a 30-year conspiracy.
Yeah, no, this was not something that I was hankering to delve into.
It's kind of like Bobby Kennedy, how he got involved in childhood vaccines.
He was giving all these speeches on the environment, and all these moms would show up with their T-shirts.
He kept him at bay for quite some time until one of the moms found out where he lived, came to his house with a stack of science, which he knew how to read because he was an environmental lawyer, and said, I'm not going to leave until you read this.
And to his credit, he sat down and read it.
And further to his credit, once he read it, once his eyes were open, he couldn't close them.
As much as he probably wanted to, as much as he realized the morass he was stepping into, I can't close my eyes.
I can't.
Particularly with childhood vaccine injuries.
It's bad enough with the COVID vaccine.
Ernest Ramirez lost his son.
It's just heartbreaking.
Facebook dissolving these groups that were the only lifeline for some of these vaccine injuries and they started committing suicide afterwards because they lost that connection that they didn't have before these groups.
You look at the documentary just vaxxed and you see these parents had a And they have a video of a perfectly normal child.
And they take them in for a well visit.
So they get a vaccine.
That night they spike a fever, have a seizure.
Now they got a 26-year-old son who is extremely autistic, can't verbalize, acts up as...
It's horrible.
And you see the stats where you go from, it's hard to verify the 10,001, but I mean, we know by CDC's own...
By the way, while they've actually narrowed the definition of autism, they didn't expand it, they narrowed it.
What's causing that?
And after the makers of Vaxxed went on a road trip with a bus premiering this thing, and other parents would come up to the bus, and so they started videotaping their stories.
And they got something like 10,000 stories of parents, almost identical.
It's like, perfectly normal child, got the video to prove it, go in, you know, within that night or within days.
You start looking at the increase in SIDS versus the increase of the, you know, vaccine schedule.
Again, I'm not a doctor, not a medical researcher.
My eyes have just been opened up to how...
You can't even ask them.
Anybody who does gets marginalized, vilified, discredited, and that's how they battle this.
They don't battle it with the truth.
In my public events, I always invited the federal officials, I always invited the executives from the big firemen, come in and defend yourself.
You never really thought about it like most people, me too, I yelled at anyone who asked questions about it myself, so I'm sympathetic actually in some ways to people who don't want to hear it.
But now that you've looked into it and you said you don't have a coherent theory as to what it was, but you've got a lot of questions, which questions trouble you the most?
Where you look at that and it just, yeah, I mean, this is really weird.
It does come down just like a building demolition type of project.
You get a documentary of this Alaskan structural engineering professor that does a four-year study on it.
Pretty well debunks NIST's analysis.
Again, you don't have to be a structural engineer to say this really doesn't make sense.
When you start putting together at what temperature steel melts, they had molten.
Steel in the Twin Towers.
I'm not sure we had a number seven.
But if one column, one column expanded, went off kilter, and that's what brought the whole thing down, well, it wouldn't come down so symmetrically.
You wouldn't have a free fall.
Then you get deeper into it, and, you know, there's a, I think his name was Barry Jennings.
He was there, went up there.
They'd already cleared out Building 7, even though he went up there to their command center.
Somebody goes, get out of there.
It was literally predicted to come down, even though, again, a steel-structured building had never collapsed due to fire because they're protected that way.
He heard explosions.
He got down to the sixth floor and had to go back up to eight because something had been blown out.
Then, if you were upset, if you were Congressman Mike Lawler, and you were upset that someone was a conspiracy theorist, and if you were sincerely bothered by that, by conspiracy theories, okay, I understand that, then you would know the only way to end a conspiracy theory is with an explanation that makes sense.
Why is there no effort to provide one?
Why isn't there a study, a government study, of Building 7?
I've been targeted by the FBI's misinformation campaign on Hunter Biden's computer.
I mean, they've given me BS briefings to throw me off the trail.
So I've seen this.
Again, I didn't run for the U.S. Senate because I wanted to get involved in investigations.
I ran because we were more during our kids' future because I knew Obamacare wouldn't work.
But you become chairman of Homeland Security.
Immediately, you've got the Hillary Clinton email scandal.
That's in our committee's jurisdiction, federal records, plus for the Oversight Committee.
So you start doing those investigations, and just one investigation, just more so than another, the same cast of characters, the FBI that wrote the exoneration memo for James Comey.
Transferring to Crossfire Hurricane to, you know, the group that, you know, Vindman and the impeachment inquiry of Trump.
I mean, you just see it all, and your eyes are opened up to the total corruption of these federal government agencies, and you realize we've just been lied to over and over and over and over again throughout history, at least, you know, history that's recent in my past.
I wonder why you haven't just ignored it like everybody else.
I met you right in early 2011, right almost 15 years ago when you first got there.
You're a business guy from Wisconsin, very closely divided state.
You didn't win by a huge margin.
You never won by 30 points.
So, you know, whenever you talk about something in public, you're taking a bigger risk than, say, the senator from Utah or South Dakota because you could lose an election.
I never in a million years thought you, of all people, would be the guy to, like, ask questions about 9-11 or the vax or January 6th and a whole bunch of other issues.
And yet you have been the only guy in a lot of cases to ask those questions.
So again, you start That's my committee's jurisdiction.
That has to be investigated.
I can't turn a blind's eye toward that.
And then, like Bobby Kennedy, once your eyes are open to this, you also can't turn a blind's eye.
But I think it's just the empathy you have for the vaccine injured.
Again, I didn't reach out to them because I was holding hearings because nobody else was on early treatment when I still had the chairmanship.
People start reaching out to you.
And then you become aware of these people that are completely being gaslit or being ignored.
I mean, I could not believe in that Milwaukee event I held in June 2021 where I met Breanne Dressen and Maddie DeGarry and other vaccine-injured Cheryl Rutgers.
Again, I was hoping there would be some measure of sympathy expressed by the news media.
They would ask them their stories.
You know, tell us about your experience.
No, the first question was, hey, Ken Rutgers, you just want to try and make money off of a lawsuit here?
Is that why you're doing this?
So, you develop an empathy for these people.
And then, listen, I'm not a New Yorker.
I wasn't impacted any more than the world was by 9-11.
Not anywhere like the firefighters who lost their loved ones or the 9-11 families.
But then they come up to you, and they're literally begging you, please, I want some closure here.
I want to know what happened.
The government's not being honest.
You combine that with the fact that I know the government just frickin' lies through their teeth to the American public all the time, which is outrageous.
Now I'm chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
That's responsibility.
Now, you have to pick your targets.
I've always said I'm like a mosquito in a nudist colony.
It's a target-rich environment.
But I guess I'm focusing on the things where there are legitimate questions by Americans who are grieving, who are suffering because they don't have an answer, because their vaccine injuries aren't being taken seriously.
So we're not providing the research for it.
So they're not getting treatment.
They can't be helped.
So, you take up their cause, because nobody else is doing it, and you have responsibility to take up that cause.
So, no, I mean, my life would be a whole lot easier if I just ignored this stuff.
And in her case, the drug company said that she has a stomachache, basically.
That's how they reported it to their government reporting.
This girl who'd been in the hospital dozens of times, her young life, I wouldn't say it's over, but it's not normal anymore.
No, these people suffered horrible industries.
I mean, Ernesto Ramirez, single parent, his son, I think 16-year-old son, somewhere around that age, it's his life.
Died suddenly.
Boom.
And you just heard, again, you saw that so many times.
And it's still being covered up because nobody wants to admit it.
I mean, if you're a doctor and you push this or recommend it to your patients, you don't want to know that something you recommend or push on your patients might have killed them or resulted in permanent industry.
Members of Congress who cut videos, you know, get the max!
You know, our federal health officials, the news media who relentlessly, I mean, Stephen Colbert, you think he'll ever admit to vaccine injuries?
After he does his little skits with the little, you know, hypodermic needles in the background.
So no, I mean, that's the whole problem is you've got an entire society that doesn't want to admit they're wrong, including people who got the injection, that don't really want to think about it, just move on with their life.
And by the way, to provide some comfort.
I think they were definitely hot lots.
I've written oversight letters on this.
It looks like probably about 5%, 4% of the injections created about 80% of the adverse events.
You know, they were fully vested in this vax, in this injection.
This was the solution.
They pushed it.
They ignored the safety surveillance.
I mean, the V-safe system.
This was set up specifically to track the safety of the COVID injection.
10 million people volunteered on their mobile device.
Now, the questions they asked were pretty mild.
They really weren't designed to...
They had a list of kind of mild symptoms, you know, irritation of the arm, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The second part was a little bit more serious.
Did you lose a day of work or school?
Did you seek medical care?
That's as serious as it got, okay?
But the results were shocking.
And even more shocking, they hid it from the public for two years.
It took Aaron Seary two years suing the government to release The results of the online mobile application v-safe data.
The results were 25% of the people, of the 10 million people, 25% lost a day of work or school because their adverse event was, you know, they felt bad enough.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
On one level, that's not surprising.
That's what they do.
But on another level, it's shocking.
With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
And that is totally wrong.
It's immoral.
What can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
That's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe.
Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.