TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @LightOnLiberty
reSee.it AI Summary
I swear under oath after 27 hours at Detroit's TCF Center that I witnessed MASSIVE election fraud: late-night ballot dumps. My manager, Nick Economagunas (partial Dominion owner), ordered me there instead of the Detroit elections building. I saw vans full of ballots, photos of people with ballots from a Chicago warehouse, and at 4:30 AM Baxter brought in boxes from the rear. Each box held ~600 ballots, totaling ~50,000 illegal ballots dumped before 6 AM shift change. This is the fraud we warned about in 2020.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
A Dominion contractor with two degrees, swore under oath in her affidavit after working 27 hours at Detroit's TCF Center that she witnessed MASSIVE amounts of clear election fraud involving late-night ballot dumps. She detailed how her manager, Nick Economagunas (part owner of Dominion), ordered her there instead of the Detroit elections building. She saw vans FULL of ballots arriving, photos of people carrying ballots out of a "Chicago warehouse," and at 4:30 AM, Mr. Baxter personally brought in boxes from the rear entrance. She stated each box holding approx 600 ballots, totaling around 50,000 ILLEGAL ballots dumped onto tables just before a 6 AM shift change! This is exactly the kind of election fraud we've been warning about that was running RAMPANT across the country during the 2020 election!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that in their affidavit they list 19 points and describe spending 27 hours at the TCF Center. They state they are a mother with two children and two degrees, and claim they would never write an affidavit under oath just to write it, noting that you can go to prison for this.
They explain that they was initially supposed to work at the Detroit Department of Elections building, an order by their manager, Nick Economagunas, whom they identify as part owner of Dominion. They claim they have emails confirming the arrangement and that they were trained on the adjudication and tabulation process. An email allegedly instructs them to park in a lot and be shuttled to what they call the “Chicago Warehouse.”
The speaker asserts that there was illegal activity at that location, stating that there are pictures of people carrying ballots out of the place and vans full of ballots leaving.
Around 4:30 AM, they say there was an announcement that a new shipment of ballots was arriving, and that these boxes of ballots were brought in by “mister Baxter” from the rear of the room. They personally witnessed Mr. Baxter carrying boxes from the rear basement of the TCF Center to the tables. They describe each box as containing approximately 600 ballots, and note that the tables were 10-foot tables and about seven tables in total, all full of boxes of ballots.
They estimate that about 50,000 ballots were brought in, clarifying that not all ballots were necessarily from the rear entrance, but that there were far more ballots than the ones brought in from the rear entrance. They recount the timeline as starting at 6 AM, with shipments arriving around 4:30–5 AM, and three rounds of activity earlier in the night—from around 10 PM to 1 AM and 1 AM to 4 AM—followed by the arrival of the 4:30 AM boxes.
With the shift change, most volunteers, who had expected to be there from 10 PM to 5 AM, left at 5 AM, leaving the speaker to stay. The shift change occurred, and at 6 AM, Baxter and his management team resumed on the microphone. They allegedly stated, “this is what democracy is is supposed to look like,” and the whole room cheered in response to the new shift.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have 19 things in my affidavit. I was at the TCF Center for twenty seven hours. I'm a mother. I have two children, and I have two degrees. I'm very, I I would never I don't know any woman in the world that would write a an affidavit under oath just to write it.
You know? You can go to prison for this. So, anyways, I wanna make this very clear. My I was initially supposed to, work at the, Detroit Department of Elections building. That was an order by my manager, Nick Economagunas, part owner of Dominion.
I have it all in emails. What was going I was trained on the adjudication and tabulation process. So in the email, it says you are to park in a parking lot and get shuttled over to this, they called it the they referred to it as the Chicago Warehouse.
Speaker 1: I
Speaker 0: know for a fact there was illegal activity going on there. People have pictures of people carrying ballots out of that place. There is pictures of vans full of ballots coming out of that place.
Speaker 1: Then around 04:30AM, we had an announcement that a new shipment of ballots were arriving, and these boxes of ballots were brought in by mister Baxter himself at 04:30AM from the rear of the room. So I personally, I witnessed mister Baxter carrying boxes from the rear of the basement of the TCF center into the the the tables. So each box, approximate 600 ballots, and there was like a full what you have to know is that these tables, there's about seven tables. They were 10 foot tables each. Every table was full of boxes of ballots.
It's not tens of thousands or 20 thousands. I approximate 50,000 ballots were brought in. Now were all of those ballots brought in from the rear entrance to the TCF center? I don't know. They were brought in from the TCF center, but they was there was a lot more than just the ones that were brought in from the t the rear entrance of the TCF center.
And I'm talking this is the AM. This is when we're starting at 6AM, the 04:30, 5AM. It was a 50,000 ballots on the table equal to the two rounds that we did before. We did a round around 10PM to about one p 1AM and then 1AM to about 4AM. And then this the the boxes were brought in from the rear around 04:30, then they had the shift change from around five to six.
So with this the shift change, most of the the volunteers were were tired at this point. They only expected to be there from 10PM to 5AM. So ninety ninety plus percent of them left at 5AM. I decided to stick around. So they had the shift change.
At this at 6AM, mister Baxter and his, management team got back on the microphone and said, this is what the news the new shift change, right, the new employees says, this is what democracy is is supposed to look like. Right in front of everyone, the whole room cheered.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told Dr. Peter McCullough showed the CDC fully redacted a 148-page myocarditis study on vaccine recipients. Pfizer logged 1,223 deaths in 90 days, and the FDA fought to bury the dossier for 55 years. This is a coordinated cover-up by regulators—an enormous product-safety debacle.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
Dr. Peter McCullough showed us the CDC fully redacted every word of a 148-page myocarditis study on people who took the COVID vaccine. Pfizer recorded 1,223 deaths in first 90 days and the FDA fought in court to bury the dossier for 55 years. That's a coordinated cover-up by CDC, FDA, NIH & global regulators hiding massive vaccine harm. "We're witnessing active suppression of a colossal consumer product safety debacle affecting the entire world!"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier.
Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big. Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report. And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm. Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release. People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more.
It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted.
What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier.
Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big.
Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report.
And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm.
Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release.
People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.
reSee.it AI Summary
I heard a clinical molecular biologist explain Epstein reportedly collected frozen penguin pineal glands rich in HIOMT to create endogenous DMT-like molecules. She says his paid scientists used this to generate new, uncharacterized psychoactives and test them on unwitting people, potentially frying brains with oxidative stress. She asks if this could explain Britney Spears or Amanda Bynes, and links it to elite experimentation, pineal calcification, fluoride, and the pursuit of powerful mind-altering substances.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
A clinical molecular biologist revealed a chilling explanation on why Jeffrey Epstein reportedly collected frozen penguin pineal glands. She says that penguin pineal glands contain high levels of the enzyme HIOMT, which converts compounds into endogenous DMT-like molecules. Her theory is that Epstein's circle of scientists he paid $20 million a year for, used this enzyme as a tool to feed random chemical mixes and generate entirely new, uncharacterized psychoactive compounds never seen before and then test them on unsuspecting people! She warns these novel drugs, potentially stronger or with longer half-lives than DMT, would overload the serotonin system and "absolutely fry people's brains" by causing massive oxidative stress and neuron damage without safeguards. Is it possible THIS is what happened to Britney Spears? Could this ALSO be what happened to Amanda Bynes in their efforts to make her forget the abuse that was done to her? HOW MANY OTHERS?! "If they gave those drugs to people... they were absolutely frying people's brains!" This ties into what we've known about elite experimentation, pineal calcification from fluoride reducing natural function over generations, and the pursuit of powerful mind-altering substances via harvesting through horrific torture!
Video Transcript AI Summary
A clinical molecular biologist explains that they were tipped off that Epstein had bought a lot of frozen penguin pineal glands, which they found unusual. They back up to describe what the pineal gland is: an organ in the brain that produces serotonin, controls sleep-wake cycles, and is the site of action for hallucinogens like DMT. It is referenced in psychological research for depressive disorders, mania, schizophrenia, and even noetic topics like psychic abilities. The pineal gland is commonly known and can become calcified by fluoride; adults today have less pineal function than a century ago.
The biologist notes that penguin pineal glands have a very high concentration of the enzyme HIOMT. HIOMT is described as an organic “machine” that, given substrates, converts them into other compounds and is responsible for producing some endogenous DMT in the body. The question raised is why Epstein would want penguin pineal glands when DMT can be purchased; the implication is that the glands could be used to generate novel compounds.
In the realm of synthetic chemistry, the biologist explains a common practice: when the best synthetic route for a desired compound is unknown, researchers sometimes “throw spaghetti on the wall” by exposing HIOMT to a racemic mix of various compounds to see what products are formed. The idea is that HIOMT will act on these random substrates to produce new, uncharacterized compounds. If researchers can produce these compounds in sufficient concentrations, they can purify and separate them, and then administer them to unsuspecting people to observe effects.
The biologist speculates that the penguin pineal glands were sought for exactly this purpose—giving HIOMT a random mix of substrates to generate new compounds and then using those compounds in human research. They caution that the brain cannot tolerate excessive serotonin input because DMT interacts with the serotonin system. Prolonged or excessive serotonin input could fry neurons. The speaker suggests that if this were happening and if the resulting drugs were more potent or longer-lasting than DMT, brain damage could occur unless there was an on-the-team expert to manage oxidative stress, regulate doses, and implement breaks between doses.
Ultimately, the best guess offered is that the frozen penguin pineal glands were being used to create new drugs by exploiting HIOMT’s activity on a random substrate mix, with potential to test these compounds in humans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm a clinical molecular biologist. That that's what I do for a living. And I was, tipped off kind of that Epstein had bought a bunch of penguin pineal glands. That's weird. Frozen.
Started looking into it. I was like, that's that's a weird signal. Started looking into it, and the penguin if you don't know what the pineal gland is, back up. Right? It sits in your brain.
It's an organ, and it's responsible responsible for producing serotonin. It controls your sleep wake cycles. It's the site of action for hallucinogenics like DMT. Right? It's in a ton of, like, psychological research for, like, depressive disorder and, like, mania and schizophrenia, stuff like that.
It's in a lot of research for, like, noetic stuff, like psychic abilities, which is wild. Everybody likes a pineal gland. Right? It is very, very, broken. It gets calcified by fluoride.
Right? You can actually see it, like, get cloudy. In fact, like adults today have very little pineal function as compared to like a hundred years ago. So anyway, they bought a bunch of penguin pineal glands that are frozen. So I started looking into the differences between human pineal glands and penguin pineal glands.
Apparently, penguin pineal glands have a really high concentration of this compound or sorry, this enzyme called HIOMT. Right? HIOMT is responsible. It's like a little organic machine. So you give it stuff and it, like, converts that compound into other compounds.
Right? It is responsible for producing some of the endogenous, like, already in our body, DMT that we make. So why why would they want this? They can buy DMT. Like, I'm sure.
I'm sure they have a DMT dealer. Right? This video is so gonna get taken down. Because in synthetic chemistry, what we very frequently do is we say, you know, we don't know, like, the best way to make this compound. Even the smallest changes to compounds can significantly alter their effects.
So what a lot of people do is they just, like, throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks. So they give this this enzyme a bunch of different compounds, like a racemic mix is what we call it. But they just say, you know, all these random compounds, h o I m t will absolutely work on these, and they'll produce new compounds that we've never seen and characterized and identified before. But if we can make them and if we can make them in high enough concentrations, we can absolutely separate them out from each other. We can purify them out.
Right? And then we can give them to unsuspected people, probably, because they're evil demons. Right? And we can see how they impact humans. So my best guess is that that was that's what they were doing.
That's what the human pineal glands were for is that or sorry. The penguin pineal glands were for. Right? Is that they were just trying to give this enzyme just a random mix of stuff and seeing what came out on the wash and then using those compounds in human research. Unfortunately, your brain cannot handle that much of, like, serotonin input because DMT hits the serotonin system.
Right? You can't handle that much serotonin input for very long. You will absolutely fry those neurons. So if if this is what they were doing and if they gave those drugs to people and if they were stronger or had a longer half life or whatever than DMT, they were absolutely frying people's brains. I can't think of unless you had someone like me that was on the team that could, like, preempt all of this stuff and say, you know, we're gonna be creating a lot of oxidative stress when you get these people on this, like, perfect diet, and we need to regulate the doses, and we need to have so many breaks in between doses and all of this other stuff.
Right? There's no way you're not gonna fry people's brains. So that is my guess, my best guess for why they wanted a bunch of frozen penguin pineal glands, is they were trying to make new drugs.
reSee.it AI Summary
I read that documents claim the Biden DOJ secretly wired $2 million to Fulton County DA Fani Willis during her RICO case against Trump and 18 allies, alleging coordination with the White House and J6 Democrats to pursue double jeopardy prosecutions, draining Trump’s resources across jurisdictions. The post asserts this as proof of political influence over prosecutions.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
New documents reveal that while Fulton County DA Fani Willis was building her RICO and conspiracy case against President Trump and 18 allies, the Biden Justice Department secretly wired 2 million dollars directly to her office! "This looks like a gift grant to Fani Willis while she's doing the bidding of Joe Biden to pursue and tie down Donald Trump and his friends in a criminal prosecution in Atlanta!" Evidence shows CLEAR coordination between Willis, the Biden White House, DOJ, and J6 Democrats to create double jeopardy prosecutions, draining Trump's resources across jurisdictions in violation of justice principles!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Yesterday, we told you that new documents we got showed that Fonny Willis was recording was working secretly behind the scenes with the Biden justice department, the Biden White House, and the j six democrats to create a double jeopardy, double drain on Donald Trump's supporters by creating a similar indictment to Jack Smith, but in Georgia to move resources and lawyers and and attention span and divide it. We have we're supposed to have a justice system that avoids double jeopardy, but in this case, you can see the plot being created by these lawyers and by the collaboration. Today, we raise a question or we provide some evidence to a question that Jim Jordan raised about a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. He believed that Fonny Willis' prosecution of Trump was being underwritten by the justice department because he saw a stream of funding. What we see, what we've provided to the public, is an unusual situation.
In the middle of Willis building your case against Donald Trump and 18 of his allies and and to charge them with conspiracy in and racketeering in Georgia to double up on what Jack Smith charged in Washington, The justice department comes to Fonny Willis and says, hey. We just want you to apply for this grant, and we're gonna take this grant, which is normally competitive. We're gonna make it noncompetitive. Basically, you're the only one that's gonna get the money. Just fill out the paperwork and take your cash, about $2,000,000.
It's that classic Washington grant, go help kids, not really much specificity, but they move it from competitive to sole source, meaning that it's wired just for her. It looks like the old Boss Hogg way of doing business or Tammany Hall way of doing business. And I think for Jim Jordan or Barry Loudermilk who was on our show last night investigating January 6 from the judiciary committee, this is a pretty serious issue for them to investigate. This looks like a gift grant to Fonny Willis while she's doing the bidding of Joe Biden to pursue and tie down Donald Trump and his friends in a criminal prosecution in Atlanta. It looks just like Tammany Hall, Chicago style politics, and there's now a complete body of documents for congress to look at this.
It's it's a pretty pretty clear case of what's going on.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, we told you that new documents we got showed that Fonny Willis was recording was working secretly behind the scenes with the Biden justice department, the Biden White House, and the j six democrats to create a double jeopardy, double drain on Donald Trump's supporters by creating a similar indictment to Jack Smith, but in Georgia to move resources and lawyers and and attention span and divide it. We have we're supposed to have a justice system that avoids double jeopardy, but in this case, you can see the plot being created by these lawyers and by the collaboration. Today, we raise a question or we provide some evidence to a question that Jim Jordan raised about a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. He believed that Fonny Willis' prosecution of Trump was being underwritten by the justice department because he saw a stream of funding. What we see, what we've provided to the public, is an unusual situation.
In the middle of Willis building your case against Donald Trump and 18 of his allies and and to charge them with conspiracy in and racketeering in Georgia to double up on what Jack Smith charged in Washington, The justice department comes to Fonny Willis and says, hey. We just want you to apply for this grant, and we're gonna take this grant, which is normally competitive. We're gonna make it noncompetitive. Basically, you're the only one that's gonna get the money. Just fill out the paperwork and take your cash, about $2,000,000.
It's that classic Washington grant, go help kids, not really much specificity, but they move it from competitive to sole source, meaning that it's wired just for her. It looks like the old Boss Hogg way of doing business or Tammany Hall way of doing business. And I think for Jim Jordan or Barry Loudermilk who was on our show last night investigating January 6 from the judiciary committee, this is a pretty serious issue for them to investigate. This looks like a gift grant to Fonny Willis while she's doing the bidding of Joe Biden to pursue and tie down Donald Trump and his friends in a criminal prosecution in Atlanta. It looks just like Tammany Hall, Chicago style politics, and there's now a complete body of documents for congress to look at this.
It's it's a pretty pretty clear case of what's going on.
reSee.it AI Summary
I claim newborns are injected within hours of birth with a chemical that opens the blood–brain barrier, followed by aluminum-filled vaccines, a supposed neurotoxin. I note polysorbate 80 is used in studies to induce infertility, yet doctors give it to newborns at a concerning dose. I link this to the infertility crisis and ask if the Vitamin K shot plays a role.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
They inject newborn babies within hours of birth with a chemical that opens the blood-brain barrier, then immediately chase it with aluminum filled vaccines, a well known neurotoxin. Polysorbate 80 is literally USED IN CLINICAL STUDIES TO INDUCE INFERTILITY, yet doctors are injecting it into our newborns at 200x the concerning dose immediately after birth. Think about the infertility crisis we're seeing in young people today. Could the Vitamin K shot be a contributing factor to it?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 discusses the idea that doctors will say a preservative-free form is not necessarily safe. The claim is that a preservative-free label does not guarantee safety.
The discussion then focuses on Polysorbate eighty (Polysorbate 80). It is stated that there are ten milligrams of Polysorbate eighty in the preparation being discussed. Polysorbate eighty is described as being used in research studies, particularly in cancer research for brain cancer drugs, because it is used to compare the drug with Polysorbate eighty and because it “opens up the blood brain barrier” which helps the drug get into the brain. The speaker asserts that Polysorbate eighty does the same thing when administered to babies, enabling the blood-brain barrier to be opened, and then, immediately after that, the hepatitis B vaccine is given with two hundred fifty micrograms of aluminum. The aluminum is said to have access to the brain immediately because of the Polysorbate eighty that is in the vitamin K shot.
The speaker references a 2016 statement of concern about Gardasil, noting that Gardasil injections at that time contained fifty micrograms of Polysorbate eighty, and there was concern about polysorbate eighty causing premature ovarian failure. The claim is that polygsorbate eighty is used in clinical studies to induce infertility.
The discussion then contrasts the amounts: when the vitamin K shot is injected, Amphastar has ten milligrams of Polysorbate eighty. So the concern is that there is a comparison between fifty micrograms in Gardasil and ten milligrams (which is two hundred times that amount). This discrepancy raises the question posed by the speaker: is the vitamin K shot a factor in the infertility problems that are claimed to be occurring in young people today?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the doctors will say, well we have a form that doesn't have a preservative, it's preservative free, but that doesn't mean it's safe. The second ingredient is Polysorbate eighty and there's ten milligrams of it. Polysorbate eighty is used in research studies and cancer research particularly for brain cancer drugs because they compare it with the drug and because Polysorbate eighty opens up the blood brain barrier then it helps the drug get into the brain. It does the same thing when you give it to babies, it opens up the blood brain barrier and then right after that they come along and they give the hepatitis B vaccine with two fifty micrograms of aluminum and the aluminum has access to the brain immediately because of the Polysorbate eighty in the vitamin K shot. Another issue with Polysorbate eighty in 2016, due to a statement of concern about Gardasil because the Gardasil injections at that time contained fifty micrograms of Polysorbate eighty and there is concern about polysorbate eighty causing premature ovarian failure.
It's used in clinical studies to induce, infertility. So, when you inject the vitamin K shot, the Amphastar has ten milligrams. So, they were concerned about fifty micrograms of polysorbate eighty. Ten milligrams is two hundred times the amount of fifty micrograms. So, that raises the question, is the vitamin K shot a factor in the infertility problems that we're having in young people today?
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that rapper Coolio claimed vampires drink Adrenochrome in the entertainment industry, telling others to go home and drink their “Angel-Chrome.” He also vents about being ridiculed by people close to him who dismiss serious conversations and ignore the evidence he says supports this issue.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
Rapper Coolio exposed vampires drinking Adrenochrome in the entertainment industry, shortly before his death: "Ya'll can go home and drink your, "Angel-Chrome" you suck ass MF'ers!" He also goes on to express feeling the frustrations of being RIDICULED by people close to you who display cognitive dissonance and shoot down any conversation you want to have with them on this very serious issue we as a species face on this planet despite the ability of ample amounts of evidence that can be brought to the table to prove it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Julio with the flow announces a new daily Instagram Live segment. He explains the concept: he will tell you what he’s cool on today. The core idea is about not arguing when something is obviously wrong or when someone points out an obvious issue. He says that some things are made up, fictional, fake, or unknown, but when something is obvious, whether you’ve done the research or not, you shouldn’t argue about it. The message emphasizes accepting obvious truths without disputing them. He contrasts this with spending time arguing about what’s evident.
Towards the end, he expresses strong dismissal of those who argue against obvious points, telling the audience to “go head on, go home and drink your androchrome,” and labels them as “sucker ass motherfuckers.” He signals that he’s upset in this moment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yo. What's up? This is Julio with the flow here on my Instagram live, and I'm a do something for the first time. It's a new segment. It's a new segment that I'm a do every day that I'm a call.
I'm cool on that. I'm a tell you what I'm cool on today. What I'm cool on today is when something is obviously wrong or you obvious something some you you see something going on, and then somebody brings it to your attention. Right? And then you sit there, argue them down about how it's not true.
I'm cool on that. For real. Because because, you know, some things are some things are are are make believe, some things are fictional, some things are are fake, and some things we don't know about. But if something is obvious, whether you've done the research or not, if something is obvious, then why would you argue about it? Okay?
Now y'all can go head on, go home and drink your androchrome, you sucker ass motherfuckers. I'm cool on that. Suckers on the way. He's upset.
reSee.it AI Summary
I allege 200 congressmen used ivermectin for Covid, but Big Pharma blocked it to profit from vaccines, using media to demonize it and fund kickbacks. RFK Jr. says fake news outlets suppressed ivermectin to push EUA vaccines, hiding ingredients, and profit from our tax dollars. The tale claims NIH/Fauci bias, Remdesivir, and a global propaganda war; Northern India showed life-saving results. Harris defended prescribing; supporters call for accountability.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
200 congressmen have been treated with Ivermectin against Covid-19. You weren't allowed to use it because Big Pharma wanted to profit from the vaccines in which they used the media conglomerates that they own, to advertise after they demonized Ivermectin. Big Pharma then took profits from the vaccines and gave kickbacks to the same people in Congress who took Ivermectin.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two hundred congresspeople have been treated with ivermectin for COVID. I did not know that. You could probably find it on doctor Pierre Corey’s Twitter page. Before there were vaccines, this was a common treatment, an off-label treatment for COVID. I do not know what the motivation for demonizing this particular medication is. Again, I’m not a doctor, and I’m not a scientist. But I would imagine some of it has to do with money. The reason being is that it is a generic drug now. They’ve the patent has run out. So anybody can make it, and it’s worth, like, 30¢ a dose.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Two hundred congresspeople have been treated with ivermectin for COVID. Did you know that? I did not know that. Yeah. Holy Two hundred.
I believe you could probably find it in doctor Pierre Corey's Twitter page. Yeah. Be before there were vaccines, this was a common treatment, an off label treatment for COVID. Now I do not know what the motivation for demonizing this this particular medication is. Again, I'm not a doctor, and I'm not a scientist.
But I would imagine some of it has to do with money. The reason being is that it is a generic drug now. They've the patent has run out. So anybody can make it, and it's worth, like, 30¢ a dose.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exposed that Big Pharma owned Fake News Outlets suppressed Ivermectin on purpose because in order for Big Pharma to authorize COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization to bypass the FDA and avoid disclosing ingredients of their vaccines while forcing the public to take it, NO ALTERNATIVE CURES are allowed to exist. Which means Big Pharma wouldn't have been able to force the vaccines on us and make the largest profit of the past few decades of their careers, using our tax dollars. They suppressed cures and let our family members die on purpose so they could make money. The Federal Emergency Use Authorization under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, does indeed require that there be no adequate, approved, and available alternative cures in order for their vaccine product to be authorized, as outlined by the FDA. That's the kind of sick evil monsters we're dealing with here.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 expresses disbelief about how the system works against dissenters, claiming they witnessed it firsthand. They reference a CNN segment in which their face was made yellow and they were accused of taking “horse medication.” They describe this as a uniform and clear indication of a conspiracy, arguing that the portrayal as “horse dewormer” is pervasive and that the medication has been prescribed billions of times.
Speaker 1 responds by noting that ivermectin has been used billions of times and mentions that it was claimed to have Nobel Prize–level efficacy in humans, calling that assertion wild. They suggest that the media had to discredit ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because of federal law surrounding emergency use authorization (EUA). The claim is that an EUA cannot be issued for a vaccine if there exists an approved medication shown to be effective against the target illness. Therefore, they allege, the strategy was to destroy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and to tell people they are not effective. The underlying assertion is that acknowledging any effectiveness would undermine the entire vaccine enterprise, which is described as a $200,000,000,000 vaccine enterprise.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Because I I can have no questions about how it actually works. How the system actually works to go against people that are dissenters. I can have no questions because I was in the middle of it. I saw it. I saw it happen.
I saw the CNN thing where they made my face yellow and said I was taking horse medication, which is that the most that's to say that and repeat that over and over again is such a clear indication that they conspired. It's such a because it's this it's uniform. It's horse dewormer uniform. A medication that's used far more often than human beings. It's been prescribed
Speaker 1: billions.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's insane. And the fact that
Speaker 1: And won the Nobel Prize for for efficacy in humans.
Speaker 0: Yeah. In humans. Yeah. It was wild. It was just wild.
Speaker 1: They had to do it. They had to discredit ivermectin because, you know, because there's a federal law, the federal the emergency use authorization statute says that you cannot issue you cannot issue an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is an existing medication that has been approved for any purpose that that is demonstrated effective against the target illness. So they had to destroy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and discredit it, and they had to tell everybody it's not effective. Because if they had acknowledged that it's effective in anybody, the whole $200,000,000,000 vaccine enterprise would have collapsed.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
The Story of Ivermectin — From Nobel Prize Winner to NIH Censorship: How a $3 Life-Saving Drug Was Sidelined by Big Pharma During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The discovery of ivermectin in 1970 led to a Nobel Prize-winning treatment for river blindness. By 2020, billions of doses had been safely administered worldwide, and it was on WHO's essential medicines list. During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers found ivermectin showed promise in lab studies. Multiple observational studies and trials worldwide reported positive outcomes in various countries. Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of ICU doctors, physicians and former journalists, compiled evidence from 30+ studies showing ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID-19. They presented this data to a Senate committee in December 2020. The World Health Organization recommended against Remdesivir use, citing no evidence of improved survival. Despite this, Fauci and the NIH panel continued recommending the $3,100 treatment while not recommending evaluation of the effective studies of ivermectin, resulting in the deaths of countless innocent people who were forced into to Anthony Fauci's Remdesivir and ventilator protocols for hospital patients. Documented financial disclosures had shown seven NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel members received support from Gilead Sciences, maker of remdesivir. Two panel chairs had financial ties to Gilead. Northern India's experience even offered a very compelling case study - after implementing widespread ivermectin use in August 2020, their COVID-19 deaths dropped to near zero by January 2021. In August 2021, the FDA launched a relentless campaign on social media to discourage the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19, famously tweeting "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." The $cientific community, Fake News Media and health organizations such as the NIH, FDA, and WHO all rallied together in a multifaceted propaganda war against citizens worldwide to prevent them from using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment. Crimes Against Humanity
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1970, a Japanese biochemist named Satoshi Omorra discovered a bacterium with intriguing effects against roundworm and shared it with American colleague William Campbell of Merck. Campbell used the bacterium to create ivermectin, released by Merck in 1980. Ivermectin proved extremely effective against river blindness (onchocerciasis), a disease caused by a parasitic worm that affected Central and South America and much of Africa. With ivermectin, river blindness has been largely eliminated in the Americas and greatly reduced in Africa. Billions of doses have been administered; it is listed among the World Health Organization’s essential medicines. Merck’s patent expired in 1996; the drug is cheap to produce, globally available in various formulations, and, at normal dosages, has no important side effects. In 2015, Omurra received the Nobel Prize for Medicine, shared with Campbell.
Fast forward to early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic spread. Scientists searched for drugs with antiviral activity, and Monash University in Australia conducted a literature search that found ivermectin had shown activity against Zika, West Nile, and influenza. They performed experiments and found that ivermectin displays remarkable activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, reporting a 5,000-fold reduction in viral levels after a single treatment without cytotoxicity, and proposed a mechanism for this effect. Around the same time, two American scientists noted that ivermectin was used as prophylaxis against river blindness in Africa and examined whether widespread ivermectin prophylaxis correlated with COVID-19 rates. They found that countries with extensive ivermectin prophylaxis had significantly lower COVID-19 rates.
In Miami, Dr. Jean Jacques Reiter, a critical care and pulmonary specialist, treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin after being urged by a patient’s son. He reported rapid improvement: the patient’s FiO2 requirements declined within 48 hours, and she was discharged within about a week. Reiter treated many patients with ivermectin and published a June 2020 preprint; he later testified before a Senate committee about his experiences. He stated that among hundreds of outpatients treated by his team, only two were admitted to the hospital; neither died or required intubation.
Uncontrolled studies on ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment circulated globally. A daughter described a care-home incident in Ontario, where residents on a floor receiving high-dose ivermectin for scabies reportedly had no COVID-19 infections among residents, even as staff on that floor became infected.
In New York, Pierre Corry teamed with Reiter and Paul Merrick to form the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). In October 2020, the FLCCC released the Eye Mask Plus protocol, centering on ivermectin for prevention and treatment, and published a meta-analysis reviewing nine studies on prophylaxis and 12 studies on treatment, including seven randomized trials, all showing ivermectin’s superiority to controls. They presented figures showing reduced mortality and case rates associated with ivermectin use in various regions, including Peru, Mexico (Chiapas), and Argentina (healthcare workers).
On December 8, 2020, FLCCC members appeared before a Senate subcommittee, with testimony claiming mountains of data showing ivermectin’s miraculous effectiveness and requesting the NIH to review their data. The transcript asserts widespread suppression of ivermectin information by mainstream media (New York Times, AP), big tech (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook), and the NIH. It alleges the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel, established in April 2020, largely recommended against early treatment and promoted remdesivir instead, even though remdesivir’s mortality impact was unproven and the World Health Organization advised against its use for improving survival. The panel’s treatment recommendations (as of 01/03/2021) are cited, highlighting monoclonal antibodies for early patients and no other treatments, except for remdesivir for deteriorating patients. Fauci publicly touted remdesivir’s endpoint as time to recovery, with the primary endpoint reportedly changed mid-trial from mortality to time to recovery, raising concerns about impartiality.
The transcript traces remdesivir's production by Gilead Sciences and notes financial ties: seven panel members disclosed funding from Gilead; two of the three panel chairs received Gilead support, and Clifford Lane (one co-author on a remdesivir study) was closely connected to the study, with undisclosed ties among other authors. It argues these ties could impact decision-making and bias toward remdesivir over cheaper, repurposed drugs like ivermectin. The narrative then contrasts the U.S. approach with Uttar Pradesh, India, which authorized ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment in August 2020. In January 2021, Uttar Pradesh reported near-zero COVID-19 deaths, while the United States faced ongoing high mortality, suggesting potential differential outcomes if ivermectin had been broadly authorized. The closing remarks emphasize the suffering caused by COVID-19 and its broad impacts on families and society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 1970, a Japanese biochemist by the name of Satoshi Omorra discovered a bacterium that had intriguing effects against roundworm. He shared his discovery with his American colleague William Campbell who worked for Merck Pharmaceuticals. Campbell used the bacterium to create a medicine called ivermectin which was released by Merck in 1980. Ivermectin was found to be extremely effective against a disease called onchocerciasis which is better known as river blindness. River blindness is caused by a parasitic worm and it has caused untold suffering and even death in parts of Central And South America and much of Africa.
With the use of ivermectin, river blindness has been largely eliminated in The Americas and greatly reduced in Africa. Billions of doses of the drug have been administered and it's listed as one of the World Health Organization's essential medicines. Merck's patent on ivermectin expired in 1996. The drug is extremely cheap to produce and it's available all over the world in a variety of formulations. Best of all, it's extremely safe.
At normal dosages, it has no important side effects. In 2015, in recognition of his contributions, Doctor. Umura was given the Nobel Prize for Medicine which he shared with Doctor. Campbell. Fast forward to early twenty twenty when the COVID pandemic was spreading around the world.
Scientists and doctors were searching frantically for drugs that could treat the disease. The obvious place to start was with existing drugs that had shown antiviral activity. Early in the year a team of scientists working at Australia's Monash University did a literature search and discovered that ivermectin had shown activity against such viruses as Zika, West Nile, and influenza. They performed a series of experiments in which they found that ivermectin displays remarkable activity against SARS CoV-two in vitro, which is to say in test tubes. They published their results in a paper that appeared in April 2020.
They found that a single treatment with ivermectin produces a 5,000 fold reduction in viral levels without any cytotoxicity, meaning it didn't harm the cells. Along with their results, they proposed a mechanism whereby ivermectin achieves this miraculous effect. Around the same time, a pair of scientists working in The United States realized that ivermectin was being widely used as a prophylaxis against river blindness in Africa. They wondered if the use of ivermectin would have any effect on rates of COVID nineteen. They looked at countries where ivermectin was administered to entire populations and compared their rates of COVID-nineteen to countries where they had no such program.
They found that countries that had widespread ivermectin prophylaxis had significantly lower rates of COVID-nineteen. Meanwhile, doctors in hospitals around the world were dealing with an onslaught of patients with COVID-nineteen and they had no good medicines to treat the disease. One such doctor was Jean Jacques Reiter, a critical care and pulmonary specialist working at Broward Health Medical Center, the largest hospital in Miami Dade County. Being a lung specialist working in the ICU, Doctor. Reiter was truly on the front lines of the war against COVID.
One day, he found himself talking to the son of an elderly woman who was doing very poorly in her fight against COVID in the ICU. Keep in mind that this was at a time in the pandemic when those who were dying of COVID were not even allowed to visit with their loved ones before they passed. They often had to say their final words via telephone. Let's let Doctor. Reiter tell the story from here.
Speaker 1: Well I called the patient's son up and said listen you may want to call mom, mom is deteriorating rapidly, she's likely going to end up on a ventilator, so talk to her now. So we went back and forth it's like doctor there is something else there must be something else. I'm like no sir I have nothing nobody has anything.
Speaker 0: But luckily for this patient this man was not going to give up so easily And he pushed Doctor. Reiter to think of a treatment.
Speaker 1: Okay, tell him listen, there is this one study that I reviewed two days ago in test tubes in vitro about the use of ivermectin. He was like, okay, so let's do it. Okay, so she got ivermectin. Within forty eight hours her FiO2 requirements were coming down again and probably within a week or so she was discharged to home.
Speaker 0: Doctor. Reiter went on to treat a series of COVID patients with ivermectin and he published the results in a preprint paper which appeared in June 2020. Later in 2020, he testified before a Senate committee about his experiences treating COVID patients with ivermectin.
Speaker 1: Of the hundreds of outpatients treated by my team, only two, I repeat two, were admitted to the hospital. Neither one of them died. Neither one of them needed intubation.
Speaker 0: At the same time, all around the world a number of unintended controlled studies on the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-nineteen were being carried out. One such study took place at the Valley View Care Home in North York, Ontario, Canada. A daughter of one of the residents of the care home reported her experience on the YouTube channel of doctor Jennifer Hibbert. Her mother lived on the 4th Floor of the care home which experienced a scabies outbreak in March 2020. The residents of that floor were treated with ivermectin which eliminates scabies.
Residents of other floors were given smaller doses of ivermectin to prevent scabies. The staff of the care home were not given ivermectin and many of them tested positive for COVID-nineteen when the pandemic swept Ontario in the spring. Despite the staff coming into constant contact with the residents, here's what happened.
Speaker 2: On the 4th Floor, which is, the floor that had the scabies outbreak and they received the highest dose, had the most infected staff and not one single resident was infected with COVID.
Speaker 0: As anecdotal reports and studies like these started to pile up they caught the attention of doctors working on the front lines against COVID. One such doctor was Pierre Corie, a pulmonologist and ICU specialist working at New York's prestigious Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital. New York suffered one of the worst outbreaks of COVID in the entire world so a pulmonologist working in the ICU of a hospital in that city probably had a closer view of COVID-nineteen than almost any other doctor on earth. In the 2020, Doctor. Corey teamed up with Doctor.
Reiter and Paul Merrick to form the Frontline COVID-nineteen Critical Care Alliance or FLCCC. In October 2020 the FLCCC released the Eye Mask Plus protocol, a protocol which centers on the use of ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-nineteen. In 2020, the FLCCC released a paper in which they reviewed the studies on the use ivermectin as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-nineteen. This paper was a meta analysis. A meta analysis is a study which looks at many other studies and analyzes their results.
They found that ivermectin was extremely effective in both preventing and treating COVID-nineteen. Here are the findings of nine studies on the use of ivermectin as a prophylaxis against COVID-nineteen. In this figure, anything to the left of one indicates that ivermectin is more effective than the control. Here's a figure from
Speaker 3: the
Speaker 0: FLCCC showing the effect of the introduction of ivermectin on daily death rates in various states in the country Peru. As you can see, the introduction of ivermectin resulted in an immediate and sustained decrease in COVID-nineteen mortality. Likewise, here is a figure showing COVID-nineteen case rates in the various states of Mexico. Southern state of Chiapas was the only Mexican state to widely distribute ivermectin. Note the huge reduction in COVID-nineteen cases and compare it to neighboring states.
The paper also discusses a study conducted in Argentina where a large group of health care workers was given ivermectin. Of the seven eighty eight workers who were given ivermectin, none of them contracted COVID, whereas over fifty percent of the controls who weren't given ivermectin did contract COVID. The FLCCC paper also looked at 12 studies of the use of ivermectin to treat people who had been infected with SARS CoV-two. All 12 studies, including seven randomized control studies, showed that ivermectin was superior to the control. On 12/08/2020 members of the FLCCC appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the early treatment of COVID-nineteen which was chaired by senator Ron Johnson.
Here's some of doctor Corey's testimony to the committee.
Speaker 4: Mountains of data have emerged from all from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick. I cannot keep caring for patients when I know that they could have been saved with earlier treatment and that drug that will treat them and prevent the hospitalization is ivermectin. All I ask is for the NIH to review our data that we've compiled of all of the emerging data.
We have almost 30 studies. Everyone is reliably and reproducibly positive showing the dramatic impacts of ivermectin.
Speaker 0: Now given all the deaths and economic destruction caused by COVID nineteen, you would think that the government and the health agencies and the media of The United States would have welcomed this news with open arms, but that's not what happened. Instead, a coalition of powerful forces acted together to completely suppress any information on the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating and preventing COVID-nineteen. So now let's take a close look at who suppressed ivermectin. The first big player to suppress ivermectin was the mainstream media. The New York Times led the way by declaring that the senate hearing had promoted unproven drugs and dubious claims.
AP followed with an astonishing claim that there is no evidence that ivermectin works against COVID-nineteen, conveniently ignoring every single one of the studies that was listed in the FLCCC paper. The next group to suppress ivermectin was Big Tech. YouTube, which is owned by Google, censored a popular video by Doctor. Chris Martinson on ivermectin. They did the same to Doctor.
Christy Reisinger.
Speaker 5: To my shock and dismay, the previous video I published on December 22 about ivermectin was taken down by YouTube.
Speaker 0: Twitter went as far as blacklisting a European medical journal that published an article on treating COVID nineteen with ivermectin. Facebook went even further and removed posts by the FLCCC about their paper. The next major group to suppress ivermectin was the NIH, America's National Institutes of Health. In April 2020 the NIH formed the COVID-nineteen Treatment Guidelines Panel. This panel was incredibly influential because essentially they decided what treatment doctors in The United States could use to treat patients with COVID-nineteen.
Here are the panel's treatment recommendations from 01/03/2021 taken from their website. These were in place for most of 2020. Take a close look at the recommendations for people who are COVID positive but not yet in the hospital, or in the hospital but not yet requiring oxygen supplementation. They say that a doctor can apply for an for a monoclonal antibody, a very troublesome process, but they recommend no other treatments. This approach to treating early COVID has been described as therapeutic nihilism by Doctor.
Paul Merrick. Leaving aside ivermectin for the moment, this is truly shocking, especially given what we know about the efficacy of things like vitamin D in preventing COVID from progressing to more severe stages. And preventing that progression is paramount because it's a point of no return for many patients with COVID. Once they cross it and require intubation, they often cannot be saved. So just think about this policy for a second.
The NIH COVID-nineteen treatment panel is saying do not treat your patients until they are so sick that they need to be put on supplemental oxygen. They only make a definitive drug recommendation for patients who have deteriorated to the point where they will not survive without supplemental oxygen. And once they are that sick, what treatment do they recommend? They recommend a drug called remdesivir. It's almost as if the treatment guidelines are designed to get the patients to the point where they can be treated with remdesivir.
Let's take a closer look at remdesivir. Most people first heard of remdesivir when Doctor. Anthony Fauci made the unusual move of announcing it at a White House press conference in April 2020. Fauci is the head of the NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is a department of the NIH. Here's doctor Fauci speaking about remdesivir at the White House.
Listen carefully to what he says about the endpoint of the study he's referring to.
Speaker 3: The data shows that remdesivir has a clear cut significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.
Speaker 0: Note that he doesn't say anything about mortality. He talks about diminishing the time to recovery. It's essential to note that doctor Fauci's NIAID actually paid for the study he's referring to. So basically doctor Fauci can hardly be called an impartial judge of that study. And just as importantly Doctor.
Fauci would have been well aware of the developments with the study as it was performed. He would have been well aware of the fact that midway through the trial the primary endpoint was changed from mortality to time to recovery and this was obviously because the researchers were seeing that remdesivir had no significant impact on mortality. Changing endpoints midway through a study is highly unusual and many scientific commentators raised concerns about this. And yet Doctor. Fauci, knowing that remdesivir did nothing to reduce mortality in COVID nineteen, pressed on, touting the drug as a remarkable advance in the treatment of COVID.
Speaker 3: But we think it's really opening the door to the fact that we now have the capability of treating. And I can guarantee you as more people, more companies, more investigators get involved, it's gonna get better and better.
Speaker 0: Not very long after Anthony Fauci made that statement, the World Health Organization recommended against the use of remdesivir. Based on much larger studies they said there is no evidence that remdesivir improves survival or any other metric in COVID-nineteen. Despite that, the NIH treatment panel continued to recommend remdesivir and continues to do so today. Now all of this begs the why would the NIH and Doctor. Fauci continue to recommend a drug that has repeatedly been shown to have no effect on improving COVID-nineteen survival and which costs over $3,100 per course unlike ivermectin which is narrowly free.
In order to answer that question we have to look at who makes remdesivir and how they're related to the people who decide what drugs can be used to treat COVID-nineteen. Remdesivir is made by Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company located in Foster City, California. Gilead is an interesting company. From 1997 to 2001, the chairman of Gilead Sciences was Donald Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the invasion of Iraq. During the same period, one of the board members of Gilead was George Shultz, a long time Bush family ally who was instrumental in convincing George W.
Bush to run for president of The United States. In order to understand why the NIH treatment panel is so pro remdesivir, it's essential to understand the financial ties between Gilead Sciences and members of that treatment panel. If you look at the treatment panel's financial disclosures, you will see that no fewer than seven members disclose financial support from Gilead Sciences. Interestingly, the three co chairs who select the other members of the panel do not disclose support from Gilead. However, two of the chairs, Rory Gullock and Henry Massor, both receive financial support from Gilead.
Even more interestingly, the third co chair Clifford Lane was actually one of the authors of the NIAID study on remdesivir, but you won't see his name in the list of the article's authors. You have to look in the financial disclosure form that accompanied that article. It's also worth noting that seven out of 12 of his co authors on that study disclosed funding from Gilead Sciences. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Two of the three chairs of the NIH COVID-nineteen treatment panel, the people who put the panel together, received financial support from Gilead Sciences while the other was intimately involved in the study that attempted and failed to prove that remdesivir was an effective treatment for COVID-nineteen.
Given these professional and financial ties is there any way we could reasonably expect them to impartially judge the best treatments for COVID-nineteen or choose panel members who might advocate for repurposing cheap off patent drugs that would completely undercut the market for one of the main products of a company with which they enjoy close financial and professional ties. It's not necessary for any of them to have said not promote cheap drugs and promote remdesivir instead. Financial and research interests had already corrupted their decision making processes and biases, but we should be clear. There are sins of omission and sins of commission. And there's no way that the members of the panel, at least some of them, were unaware of the research concerning ivermectin and yet no one chose to bring that to the fore in their meetings.
Rather than recommend ivermectin or at least recommend more studies into ivermectin they chose to continue to push the drug remdesivir which they knew had no discernible effect on COVID-nineteen survival. This is professional negligence of the worst sort. And given the disproportionate influence that America's medical agencies have on many other countries' medical agencies, it's very likely that their negligence resulted in hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths around the world. And let us be completely clear about why they chose to suppress ivermectin and push a drug that they knew didn't work. They did it so that one pharmaceutical company with deep political connections, huge media support, and big tech backing could make obscene profits for themselves and their shareholders.
Now let's imagine just as a thought exercise. What if the NIH and doctor Anthony Fauci had been doing their jobs? What if sometime in the 2020, they had authorized doctors across the country to use ivermectin at their discretion? It's actually not that hard to figure out what would have happened because there is a place with a population almost the size of The United States where that's exactly what the health authorities did. The state of Uttar Pradesh in India has a population about 70% the size of The United States.
In August 2020, the Uttar Pradesh state government authorized the use of ivermectin as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-nineteen. It was given to those who tested positive for COVID as well as their primary contacts and healthcare workers. Let's look at the stats for COVID-nineteen mortality in Uttar Pradesh. There was a peak of mortality in the summer but deaths dropped very quickly after that. As we get into January 2021 we see that deaths are averaging fewer than ten a day.
And on January 19, in a state with two thirty million people, exactly no one died from COVID-nineteen. While in The United States, a country with a much more expensive medical system, we're averaging over three thousand deaths per day. If you've lost a friend or a family member to COVID-nineteen, you are a victim. If your children's education or social ization has been disrupted by COVID-nineteen you are a victim. If you've lost your job or your business because of COVID-nineteen you are a victim.
If you are suffering from long COVID and you don't know when or if you will get better you are a victim. If you're elderly and you are aware that time is limited and yet you cannot meet
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
Congressman and Doctor, Andy Harris, went on a radio show to defended himself prescribing ivermectin to COVID patients that were critical. He stated it was ridiculous to attack doctors for wanting to administer a working cure to people who desperately needed it, and he's right! https://t.co/0XrjIk0RcI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Representative Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who still practices part-time, discusses his activities outside of Congress and his approach to treating COVID-19. He notes he has written prescriptions for ivermectin for close acquaintances with COVID-19 in its early course, stating that it is an off-label use and that the FDA has not contraindicated ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, adding that it does not have a black box warning. He argues it is ridiculous to make an issue of a physician prescribing ivermectin off-label, citing data from India and other countries where ivermectin has been found to curtail COVID problems.
He explains off-label prescription: a drug company submits indications to the FDA and the drug is approved for certain indications; physicians may prescribe the drug for uses not explicitly FDA-approved when there is evidence of effectiveness. He gives dexamethasone as an example in anesthesiology—used routinely to prevent nausea even though it is not a labeled indication. He notes that companies may not pursue new indications for generic drugs due to the cost of studies, so off-label uses are common, and argues the liberal press exaggerates when doctors consider off-label prescriptions for COVID.
Regarding ivermectin, Harris emphasizes that a large portion of the world’s population has used it safely as an antiparasitic and that there is literature suggesting potential usefulness in early COVID. He cites India as an example where the government distributed ivermectin during a COVID spike, resulting in a rapid decrease in new cases, suggesting to him that India has almost no new cases currently.
On vaccination, Harris states that his approach is “all of the above.” He advocates vaccination for those at high risk and believes those at low risk should decide with their health care provider. He emphasizes using all therapeutics that may be useful when a patient contracts COVID.
When asked if he is surprised by the response to prescribing ivermectin, Harris says no. He argues that liberals who favor government control oppose off-label prescriptions, while those who value the doctor-patient relationship support a physician’s ability to prescribe off-label drugs. He asserts that if people ask their own doctors, they would see off-label prescribing as common, and he views such support as aligned with maintaining a physician’s independence from government intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: First, congressman, if you could, kind of tell us a little bit about what you've been doing outside of congress. In what capacity have you been seeing patients that have COVID nineteen?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, what what, what I do is anesthesiology, and I, you know, I still practice part time and mostly in the operating room, but I have a full medical license. And if, you know, people I know and I'm familiar with with them and then their their conditions, you know, a couple I knew came down with COVID nineteen. It was early in the course. I recommended Ivermectin, wrote a prescription for it and again you know it's an off label use. We use off label drugs all the time as physicians.
The FDA has not contraindicated ivermectin for the treatment of COVID nineteen. It doesn't have a black box warning or anything. So it's ridiculous to make any issue of a physician prescribing ivermectin as an off label use, especially given the data from India and other countries in the world where ivermectin has been found quite effective in curtailing their COVID problems.
Speaker 0: So congressman, under ordinary times, and you you talked about off label prescriptions, can you explain to us what that is?
Speaker 1: Sure. So when a a drug company presents a drug to the FDA, they present it for certain indications, and the studies are done for those certain indications, and the FDA approves the drug for certain indications. Now in the course of using the drug, if it becomes pretty clear that there are other uses for that drug, the the drug company could apply for new indications or physicians can just choose to prescribe the drug in what's called an off label prescription because it's not for an FDA approved indication, but it's one that's been shown to be effective. For example, you know, in anesthesiology, when I'm in the Operating Room, we give dexamethasone, a steroid routinely. Like, literally almost every patient gets it to avoid nausea, and yet that is not a a labeled indication for dexamethasone.
But it's very effective. It's used. And the reason why no company has applied for a new indication is that they would have it's a generically available drug, and they have to do expensive studies. So again, off label uses are done all the time by physicians, and, you know, it's just the liberal press wants to make a big deal about people who wanted you know, who who consult their physicians, consult a doctor, and just want to want a treatment for COVID that their doctor thinks is appropriate for them.
Speaker 0: So we're speaking with doctor and congressman representative Andy Harris. So what is it you know, there have been there have been a lot of back and forth issues, mainly in politics, as you kind of pointed alluded to, the use of ivermectin. So so what what are you leaning on to kind of prescribe ivermectin or that makes you comfortable in prescribing ivermectin?
Speaker 1: Well, so first off, you know, probably a billion people around the world have received it. It's it's a very, very commonly used anti antiparasitic. Hundreds of millions of people have gotten it. It's a very safe very, very safe drug, and it it has been found to be useful. I believe I I I read the literature.
I believe it's worth trying in early COVID because there there is evidence that it's effective. It's been effective in in India where where the government actually gave it to individuals in their in their COVID spike this July, and it was very effective. India, if you go look at the figures, has almost no new cases of COVID right now.
Speaker 0: So congressman Harris, I know that you've also helped to vaccinate people against COVID nineteen. So is mean, are you endorsing one over the other?
Speaker 1: No. No. It's an all of the above approach. I mean, if if especially if you're at high risk, you know, I strongly feel that that you should be vaccinated. If you're at low risk, I think that's between you and your health care provider.
It should be between you and your health care provider even if you're at high risk. But we should take a careful look at making sure we use all the therapeutics that that are possibly useful when a patient does in fact get COVID.
Speaker 0: So are you surprised by the response that you've gotten because you prescribed ivermectin to a patient?
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. You know, the the the the liberals who want government to control everything, they are you know, they find it abhorrent that a that a physician would would prescribe something off label. You know, if they ask their own doctor, do they prescribe things off label? The answer would definitely be yes.
But again and and for people who who view the importance of maintaining the doctor patient relationship and not letting the government come into that relationship, you know, they're highly supportive of my ability as a physician to prescribe an off label drug.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
@Holyfield67 They sure did, and they called US liars for calling them out on it! I'll never forget and I'll never forgive them for what they did to all of us.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
@Maidinamerica3 Exactly, which is why they had to lie to keep their profits.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
@JC48546570 I agree and they should all be charged too! If they aren't, they'll try this again.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Judges James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman declined to appear at the Senate hearing titled "Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable." Boasberg faces allegations over Arctic Frost, an FBI probe claiming to illegally track private communications of nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers in a so-called Deep State spy ring. Their refusal to defend actions under oath suggests a loud silence.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
U.S. District Judges James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman have declined to appear before a Senate hearing titled - "Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable." Judge Boasberg faces scorching allegations over his role in "Arctic Frost" which was an FBI investigation that illegally tracked private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers in a huge illegal Deep State spy ring. With both judges refusing to defend their actions under oath, their silence speaks volumes.
Video Transcript AI Summary
US district judges James Boesburg and Deborah Boardman declined to testify at a Senate hearing titled “Impeachment, Holding Rogue Judges Accountable,” prompting discussion on where things go from here. Boesburg’s rulings, including restricting the White House’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, and questions about his alleged involvement in Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation tracking private communications of Republican lawmakers, have stirred controversy. Boardman is noted for ruling against the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship.
Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, says that neither judge is unfamiliar with controversy and their reluctance to testify before the Senate is not surprising. He suggests the hearing will proceed, possibly with other witnesses or a discussion of the rulings’ substance, rather than direct testimony from the judges.
The discussion includes a clip of Sen. Ron Johnson criticizing Boesburg for nondisclosure orders, with Johnson questioning whether Boesburg knew about certain laws and stating he hopes Boesburg responds by December 4. The Arctic Frost matter is described as damning by some.
Dupree notes that the Senate may hear from other witnesses or source materials, such as conversations with Jack Smith or others involved, rather than compelling federal judges to testify about their rulings. He explains that judges typically do not testify about the substance of their decisions, and that the Senate is likely to pursue other evidence to understand what happened.
The conversation turns to impeachment standards for federal judges, which Dupree outlines as the same standards used for presidents and other federal officials: bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Historically, a handful have been impeached and removed, often for bribery or unrelated acts, while challenging rulings through appellate courts has been the usual remedy. Boesburg was reversed by higher courts in the same case, illustrating the appellate process in action.
Boardman is described as having issued multiple controversial rulings against the Trump administration, including on birthright citizenship, access to private data from agencies, and restoring America Core-funded programs. The discussion touches on the debate between claims of judicial tyranny versus the idea that judges are entitled to their interpretations, suggesting that the administration has had notable success in reversing similar rulings in the Court of Appeals, which Dupree argues demonstrates the system functioning properly.
The segment closes with appreciation for Dupree’s analysis. The closing includes a promotional note for Outnumbered, which is not part of the core discussion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A legal storm is brewing on Capitol Hill. US district judges James Boesburg and Deborah Boardman both turning down requests to testify at a senate hearing this week entitled, Impeachment, Holding Rogue Judges Accountable. Boesburg, whose series of judgments regarding the Trump administration have ignited a league of firestorm, including his decision to restrict the White House's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans. There have also been questions about his apparent role in Arctic Frost, that FBI investigation that allegedly tracked the private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers. As for Boardman, well, no stranger to controversy after ruling against the administration's effort to restrict birthright citizenship.
So the question is, where do things go from here? And we want to discuss all that with another great legal eagle, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree. Tom, good to have you with us. I don't think I'm breaking any news by saying Judge Boesburg is legal enemy number one in many cases, especially from the Trump administration's perspective. What, if anything, do you, make of his refusal to testify?
Speaker 1: Well, Kevin, I thought you put it well that neither of these judges is any stranger to controversy, and the fact that both judges have declined to testify before the senate doesn't surprise me in the least. They were invited to a hearing to testify about their possible impeachment. I can promise you that the last thing in the world they would want to do or have any interest in doing is answering questions under oath from The United States senators. So it doesn't surprise me they took a pass. My guess is that this hearing will still go forward, and it may just be a discussion.
Maybe they got other witnesses or the senators just discuss and look into the substance of the rulings that they're concerned about.
Speaker 0: Especially as it relates to Boesburg. Let me share this sound. This is Ron Johnson talking about some of the questionable decisions, not just things that have happened in the past, but that broadly paint his legal judgment, let's just say, in an unfavorable light for many. Listen to this.
Speaker 2: What judge did in issuing these nondisclosure orders, I believe, is illegal. So we sent a letter to judge Boesburg to answer. Did he not under did he not know about that law? Did Jack Jack Smith not disclose that to him? He's got till December 4 to, respond to us.
I hope he does.
Speaker 0: He says, I hope he does. Listen. This Arctic frost thing is not going away, Tom. It is it is damning, I think, and that's being generous.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And look. I think the way the senate is gonna proceed here is hear from other witnesses. I mean, they may have a chance to talk to Jack Smith. They can talk to other people who were involved in this.
I think trying to get a federal judge to come and testify about what went into his decision making is a difficult task. Typically, judges do not go and testify about the substance of their rulings or their reasoning before the senate. So my guess here, if the senate wants to look into it, they're gonna be looking into other witnesses and other evidence to try to get a better handle on what actually happened here.
Speaker 0: Listen, it's one thing to complain about judge Boesburg. It's another thing to actually act to do something. Let me share his background, and I think it is fairly clear, even to someone who might generally lean left. This is not really to me, at least, as I look at it from a layman's perspective, the actions of someone who is not a partisan. And then that's, again, not even talking about Arctic frost.
Can a person like this be impeached? And if so, how does that happen?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The standard for impeaching a federal judge is the same standard that you would use to impeach your president or other federal officials. You basically need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And if you look back at our nation's history, we have impeached and removed federal judges, but not as many as you might think, you know, a dozen or so. Typically, they would be removed and impeached for things like accepting bribes or failing to pay taxes or something unrelated to the substance of their rulings.
Traditionally, the way that we would handle judges who kind of go off their rails and make crazy wrong headed rulings is by challenging those rulings to the appellate court. And in this case, keep in mind that judge Boesburg was reversed, by the higher courts in this very case. That's typically the way that we would handle situations where you see judges just not fairly applying the law or ruling from partisan motives. You go to the appeals court or even the United States Supreme Court and get those decisions reversed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And that's been happening quite a lot. I think someone, shared something with me that said, I think the, Trump DOJ is like batting 92% on getting a lot of these crazy rulings, reversed. As for Boardman, again, a number of controversies including as I share a bit of Boardman's background. These are just some of the rulings against the Trump administration.
I want to share this for the viewers at home. Birthright citizenship, Doge access to so called private data from agencies, restoring America core funded programs. Again, just to name a few, it's one thing to say that there's judicial tyranny, and some people have made that argument. Others would say, Kevin, they're entitled. Where do you fall on that?
Speaker 1: My view is that I think federal judges all have a uniform obligation to apply the law fairly, to interpret our constitution fairly in the way that they understand it in good faith based on what the text of the law, what the text of the constitution says, regardless of whatever they, the judge, might prefer as a partisan motive or a partisan outcome. I think there are some judges frankly that are better at fairly neutrally applying the law than others. But in the cases where the judges do allow that partisan motive to seep into their rulings, the remedy, as you point out, the administration has made great and successful use of is you take that ruling to the Court of Appeals and you get it reversed. I think the fact that the administration has had such success at getting those types of rulings reversed, I think illustrates that the system is working, that the appellate courts are mindful of the fact that there are situations where these district judges are not fairly applying the law or the constitution. And when they see that happening, they immediately reverse it.
Speaker 0: Thank goodness for the appeals process because a lot of these people, Tom, are simply robed activists. There's no other way to look at it. Great to have you with us as always. Appreciate your great knowledge. Tom Dupree joining us this afternoon.
Have a good day.
Speaker 3: Hey, everyone. I'm Emily Campagnolo. Catch me and my cohost, Harris Faulkner and Kayleigh McEnany on Outnumbered every weekday at 12PM eastern, or set your DVR. Also, don't forget to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page for daily highlights.
reSee.it AI Summary
The FBI has raided John Bolton's home and office regarding classified documents, highlighting his role in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which advocated for military intervention in the Middle East. PNAC's founders, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, sought a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify the invasion of several countries. General Wesley Clark warned of these plans in 2001. I believe President Trump is aware of the true culprits behind 9/11, and I anticipate accountability for those involved.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
FBI raids former National Security Advisor John Bolton's home and office over classified documents! Anti-Trump, warmongering John Bolton was one of the direct signatories of several PNAC letters leading to 9/11, including the notable one in 1998 urging President Bill Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Bolton's involvement with PNAC directly reflects his warmongering foreign policy, championing the overthrow of world leaders in various countries for his masters in the Military Industrial Complex. The Military Industrial Complex who organized PNAC to set up the 9/11 attacks as a premise to in invade, destroy & conquer the Middle East, got even richer, while the Fake News corporations [They] also own, speaks nothing of these issues and attacks President Trump for trying to broker WORLD PEACE! You don't hate the media enough. Founders of PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Robert Kagan - who is married to Victoria Nuland. All of these members would later serve in the Bush administration, championing for regime change overseas which was accomplished due to 9/11 a few years after PNAC was founded.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Breaking news: The FBI is searching John Bolton's home outside DC and Maryland in Bethesda, Maryland. The New York Post is reporting this is related to classified documents. The FBI hasn't provided an official comment. On social media, posts from the FBI director and the deputy director read: "no one is above the law. FBI agents on a mission." Bolton, a former ambassador and National Security Adviser, was in the room with President Trump making key decisions on national security and foreign policy, and he has been highly critical of Trump. Bolton previously was accused of including classified information in his 2020 book, The Room Where It Happened, and had his life threatened by Iran after Trump pulled his security detail. This comes a day after Patel revealed that former FBI director James Comey had authorized leaks of classified documents, while "misleading congress" just before the twenty sixteen elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We actually start this hour with breaking news. The FBI is currently raiding the home of former ambassador and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Let's get straight out to News Nation's Libby Dean, who's live at the White House with all of these details and Libby. This has to do with classified information. I mean, what's going on here?
Speaker 1: Markey, this is really early on here, but I'm learning from a source that the FBI is searching John Bolton's home currently. It's just outside of DC and Maryland, and, this is obviously breaking news. But at one point, of course, this was Trump's national security adviser. It was in the room with president Trump making key decisions when it came to national security, foreign policy. Of course, we've seen him, become highly critical of president Trump, and now we're learning the FBI is conducting a search of John Bolton's home.
The New York Post is reporting this is related to classified documents. Now we have reached out to the FBI. They haven't provided an official comment, but we can take a look at social media where we've heard from both the FBI director as well as the deputy director. That's, of course, Cash Patel, is the FBI director who posted, quote, no one is above the law. FBI agents on a mission.
It's safe to assume here that that mission is likely this, search that is being conducted at John Bolton's home. Now there's a lot of history here, but we, of course, saw, Bolton had previously had his life threatened by Iran and then president Trump pull his, detail, his security detail. That's been the latest development. Also, Bolton previously was accused of including classified information in his 2020 book, The Room Where It Happened, and Bolton, of course, frequently critical of president Trump's national security foreign policy approach. And this actually comes a day after Patel real revealed that, former FBI director James Comey had authorized leaks of classified documents, while, quote, misleading congress just before the twenty sixteen elections.
Now there's a lot of history here, Markey. This is obviously breaking news. You're taking a look right there of what's taking place on the ground outside of John Bolton's home in Bethesda, Maryland. That's about thirty, forty five minutes from the White House here. But this is, of course, president Trump's, during his first term national security adviser in his home now being searched by the FBI, a major development this early morning here in DC.
Marquis.
Speaker 0: Libby Dean, thank you so much. Live from the White House. Keep us posted. We'll check back in as we continue to, learn more this morning.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
PNAC was a project that insisted we needed a "New Pearl Harbor Event" ( 9/11 ) that would allow our foot into the Middle East to set up the premise to invade & destroy the governments of 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq Syria Lebanon Libya Somalia Sudan Iran In 2001, retired 4-Star U.S. Army General named Wesley Clark warned the American people that the United States Government had plans to overthrow seven countries in 5 years. Under the guise of 9/11, it was accomplished with Bush’s invasion, later continued on being carried out with Barack Obama. The United States Government has committed Treason of the highest caliber, the likes of which will shock the entire world.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Shortly after 9/11, a Pentagon staffer says a colleague told him 'we're going to war with Iraq,' with no new evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. A few weeks later, a memo 'describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, and finishing off Iran.' Iran saw U.S. presence in Iraq as both a threat and a blessing; they were 'building up their own network of influence' and sometimes gave 'military assistance and training' to insurgents and militias. The administration allegedly sought to pay for regime change—'asking congress to appropriate $75,000,000' and 'supporting terrorist groups apparently who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq Iran.' Hersh notes a 'special planning group' to bomb Iran and Saudi funding of Sunni groups and the risk that a U.S. pull-out could empower Al Qaeda.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right after 09:11 about ten days after 09:11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw secretary Rumsfeld and and deputy secretary Wolferwitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff who used used to work for me. And one of the generals called me and he said, sir, you gotta come in you gotta come in and talk to me a second. I said, well, you're too busy. He said, no.
No. He says, we've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq. This was on or about the September 20. I said, we're going to war with Iraq. Why?
He said, I don't know. He said, I guess they don't know what else to do. So I said, well, did they find some information collect connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda? He said, no. No.
He says there's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments. And he said, I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail. So I came back to see him a few weeks later.
And by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, we still going to war with Iraq? And he said, oh, it's worse than that. He said he reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper.
He said, I just he said, I just got this down from upstairs, meeting the secretary of defense's office today. And he said, this is a memo that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran. I said, is it classified? He said, yes, sir. I said I said, well, don't show it to me.
And I saw him a year or so ago. And I said, you remember that? He said, sir, I didn't show you that memo. I didn't show it to you.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. What did you say his name was?
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna give you his name.
Speaker 1: So go through the countries again?
Speaker 0: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and then back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, is it a a replay? It's not exactly a replay. But here's the truth, that Iran from the beginning has seen that the presence of The United States in Iraq was a threat, a blessing because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn't handle them.
We took care of it for them. But also a threat because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq.
They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein, but they're building up their own network of influence. And to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice either directly or indirectly to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it's not exactly parallel because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement. Some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate.
Mean, can hardly fault Iran because they're offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That's not an offense that you can go to war over perhaps, but it is an effort to gain influence. And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don't want to pay the price with their domestic Our US domestic political base, the right wing base, but also because they don't want to legitimate a government that they've been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you'd probably believe that you were mostly already at war with The United States anyway since we've asserted that their government needs regime change. So, and we've asked congress to appropriate $75,000,000 to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups apparently who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq Iran.
And if we're not doing it, let's put it this way, we're probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it's not surprising that we're moving to a point of confrontation crisis with Iran. My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys, they're not, but that you shouldn't use force except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it's a bad one.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get your response to Seymour Hirsch's piece in the New Yorker to two key points this week. Reporting the Pentagon's established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran, that this is coming as the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia are pumping money for covert operations into many areas of the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, and Iran in an effort to strengthen Saudi supported Sunni Islam groups and weaken Iranian backed Shias. Some of the covert money has been given to jihadist groups in Lebanon with ties to Al Qaeda. Fighting the Shias by funding with Prince Bandar and then with US money not approved by Congress funding the Sunnis connected to Al Qaeda.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't have any direct information to confirm it or deny it. It's certainly plausible. The Saudis have taken a more active role. You know, the the Saudis
Speaker 1: You were just in Saudi Arabia?
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: You just came back
Speaker 0: from Saudi Arabia? Well, the Saudis have basically recognized that they have an enormous stake in the outcome in Iraq. And they don't particularly trust the judgment of The United States in this area. We haven't exactly proved our competence in Iraq. So they're trying to take matters into their own hands.
The real danger is and one of the reasons is so complicated is because let's say we did follow the desires of some people who say, just pull out and pull out now. Well, yeah, we we could mechanically do that. It would be ugly, and it might take three or four months, but you could line up the battalions on the road one by one, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and cock load and cock their weapons and shoot their way out of Iraq. You'd have a few roadside bombs, but if you line everybody up, there won't be any roadside bombs, maybe some sniping. You can fly helicopters over, do your air cover, you probably get safely out of there.
But when you leave, the Saudis have gotta find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they gonna find? Al Qaeda. Because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremist and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to Al Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we'd be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang on to a a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
President Trump KNOWS! "He was one of the people that forced Bush to do the ridiculous bombings in the Middle East. He wants to always kill people." "He could be a very unpatriotic guy. We're going to find out." Treason Doesn't Pay Well in the End! https://t.co/ukWw51pDEc
Video Transcript AI Summary
When I hired him, he served a good purpose by pushing for the ridiculous bombings in The Middle East. He wants to kill people and is very bad at what he does, but that worked for me because when he’s quiet, he’s a quiet presence; in meetings, leaders fear him and would give me everything. He could say something bad about Trump; he’ll always do that, but he really doesn’t talk. He’s quiet. I could walk into a room with him and a foreign country would cave. He’s not a smart guy, but he could be a very unpatriotic guy. I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning. They did a raid. DOJ briefing? They’ll brief me probably today. It’s not necessary. I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I’m the chief law enforcement officer, but I feel that it’s better this way.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I when I hired him, he served a good purpose because as you know, he was one of the people that forced push to do the ridiculous bombings in The Middle East about he, you know, he he wants to always kill people. And, he's very bad at what he does, but he worked out great for me because every time he doesn't talk, he's like a very quiet person, except on television. He could say something bad about Trump. He'll always do that. But but he really doesn't talk.
He's quiet. And I'd walk into a room with him with a foreign country, and the foreign country would give me everything because they said, oh, no. They're gonna get blown up because John Bolton is there. He's a not a smart guy, but he could be a very unpatriotic guy. I mean, we're gonna find out.
I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning. They did a raid. Do you expect, DOJ to brief you on this? They'll be they'll brief me.
Probably today sometime. And the foreign minister I don't wanna I tell Pam and I tell the group. I don't wanna know about it. Just you have to do what you have to do. I don't wanna know about it.
It's not necessary. I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I'm actually the chief law enforcement officer, but I feel that it's better this way.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
@kellyannelu Trump knows who did 9/11. And they're ALL going down, one by one.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a supercut of prominent Democrats, including Biden and Obama, pledging to preemptively attack Iran over nuclear concerns. While they talked, Trump took action, and now Democrats are in a frenzy. Their hypocrisy is evident; they seem to be the party of liars and traitors.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
A democrat supercut: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Kamala Harris pledging to attack Iran preemptively to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They talked, Trump walked. I don't see any problem here. The democrats are now melting down just because President Trump followed through. The hypocrisy of the democrat party shows each and every day - they're the party of liars, thieves and Traitors.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. An attack on Iran would occur if, during the next ten years, they considered launching an attack on Israel. The U.S. would be able to totally obliterate them.
A nuclear-armed Iran is a challenge that cannot be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy, risking a nuclear arms race and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. The United States will do what it must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Ensuring that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power is one of the highest priorities.
Iran's key nuclear and nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: United States is clear. We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: If I'm the president, we will attack Iran. Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next ten years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that.
Speaker 2: Make no mistake, a nuclear armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region and the unraveling of the non proliferation treaty. That's why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that's why The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As long as I'm president of The United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I've made that clear when I came into office.
Speaker 3: And look, I mean, has American blood on their hands. K? And what we saw in terms of just the the this attack on Israel, 200 ballistic missiles. What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities.
Speaker 0: So if you
Speaker 1: have proof that Thank
Speaker 0: you very much. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear and nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the assassination of JFK by the CIA marks a pivotal moment in our nation's history, one that continues to reveal deep-rooted government corruption. The Warren Commission's findings and Nixon's involvement in Watergate, with CIA connections, highlight a long-standing pattern of deceit. It's baffling that some think corruption began in 2016 with Trump, when in reality, it has been pervasive since the beginning. People are finally waking up to this truth, and the urgency to expose these issues is more critical than ever.
@LightOnLiberty - Bridgett Fertig
The CIA murders JFK. The Warren Commission absolves the CIA. Nixon knows the CIA murdered JFK. 4 of the 5 Watergate burglars work for the CIA. The CIA frames Nixon for Watergate. Ford is chosen as Nixon's replacement. Ford was on the Warren Commission. How on God's Green Earth can anti-Trump liberals ACTUALLY believe corruption in government STARTED in 2016 BECAUSE of Donald Trump? The centerpiece of the downward spiral of our nation will always circle around to that fateful day on November 22nd, 1963. The day our own government murdered a sitting U.S. President on live T.V. who tried to push back against the cabal for We, The People, while a compliant media covered it all up & still does to this day. Corruption is being exposed at the inducted speed of Light. The public should be FURIOUS!!! People are starting to realize our government has been corrupt since it's inception & not only was President Trump NOT responsible for that, he's responsible for helping expose that fact. People are awake now more than any other point in history and they're starting to SEE it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
To understand how the American government operates, consider the case of Richard Nixon, the most popular president in U.S. history, who was forced to resign without a single vote against him. Nixon believed federal agencies were undermining democracy. His downfall began with the Watergate scandal, which was reported by Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to intelligence agencies. The investigation was fueled by Mark Felt, the FBI's deputy director, who was involved in discrediting Nixon. Following Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford, who had served on the Warren Commission, became president. This illustrates how unelected officials can control the political system, undermining democracy. The targeting of figures like General Michael Flynn shows the ongoing struggle against this entrenched power. Ultimately, when unvoted individuals hold power, true democracy is compromised.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So if you want to understand, if you really want to understand how the American government actually works at the highest levels and if you want to know why they don't teach history anymore, one thing you should know is the most popular President in American history was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon. Yet somehow, without a single vote being cast by a single American voter, Richard Nixon was kicked out of office and replaced by the only unelected president in American history. So we went for the most popular president to a president nobody voted for. Wait a minute.
You may ask, why didn't I know that? Wasn't Richard Nixon a criminal? Wasn't he despised by all decent people? No, he wasn't. In fact, if any President could claim to be the people's choice, it was Richard Nixon.
Richard Nixon was reelected in 1972 by the largest margin, the popular vote ever recorded before or since. Nixon got 17,000,000 more votes than his opponent. Less than 2 years later, he was gone. He was forced to resign. And in his place, an obedient servant of the federal agencies called Gerald Ford took over the White House.
How did that happen? What's a long story? But here are the highlights and they tell you a lot. Richard Nixon believed that elements in the federal bureaucracy were working to undermine the American system of government and had been doing that for a long time. He often said that he was absolutely right.
On June 23, 1972, Nixon met with the then CIA director, Richard Helms, at the White House. During the conversation, which thankfully was tape recorded, Nixon suggested he knew, quote, who shot John, meaning President John F. Kennedy. Nixon further implied that the CIA was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination, which we now know it was. Helms' telling response, total silence.
But for Nixon, it didn't matter because it was already over. 4 days before, on June 19th, the Washington Post had published the first of many stories about a break in at the Watergate office building. Unbeknownst to Nixon and unreported by the Washington Post, 4 of the 5 burglars worked for the CIA. The first of many dishonest Watergate stories was written by a 29 year old Metro reporter called Bob Woodward. Who exactly was Bob Woodward?
Well, he wasn't a journalist. Bob Woodward had no background whatsoever in the news business. Instead, Bob Woodward came directly from the classified areas of the federal government. Shortly before Watergate, Woodward was a naval officer at the Pentagon. He had a top secret clearance.
He worked regularly with the intel agencies. At times, Woodward was even detailed to the Nixon White House, where he interacted with Richard Nixon's top AIDS. Soon after leaving the Navy for reasons that have never been clear, Woodward was hired by the most powerful news outlet in Washington and assigned the biggest story in the country. And just to make it crystal clear what was actually happening, Woodward's main source for his Watergate series was the deputy director of the FBI, Mark Felt. And Mark Felt ran.
And we're not making this up. The FBI's Cointel Pro program, which was designed to secretly discredit political actors the federal agencies wanted to destroy people like Richard Nixon. And at the same time, those same agencies were also working to take down Nixon's elected Vice President, Spiro Agnew. In the fall of 1973, Agnew was indicted for tax evasion and forced to resign. His replacement was a colorless Congressman from Grand Rapids called Gerald Ford.
What was Ford's qualification for the job? Well, he had served on the Warren Commission, which absolved the CIA of responsibility for President Kennedy's murder. Nixon was strong armed into accepting Gerald Ford by Democrats in Congress. Quote, we gave Nixon no choice but Ford, Speaker of the House, Carl Albert later boasted. 8 months later, Gerald Ford of the Warren Commission was the President of the United States.
See how that works. So those are the facts, not speculation. All of that actually happened. None of it's secret. Most of it actually is on Wikipedia, but no mainstream news organization has ever told that story.
It's so obvious, yet it's intentionally ignored. And as a result, permanent Washington remains in charge of our political system. Unelected lifers in the federal agencies make the biggest decisions in American government and crush anyone who tries to rein them in. And in the process, our democracy becomes a joke. Now you may have noticed that the very first person in the Trump administration the agencies went after was General Michael Flynn.
Why Flynn? Because Mike Flynn was a career army intel officer who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency. In other words, Mike Flynn knew exactly how the system worked, and as a result, he was capable of fighting back. 4 days after Donald Trump's inauguration, the FBI lured Mike Flynn into a meeting without his lawyer, concocted a series of fake crimes, and forced him to resign. So that's how things actually work in Washington.
Let's stop lying about it. Joe Biden, meanwhile, looked like a hyena when the Justice Department destroyed Mike Flynn. So there is, we have to say, a certain perverse justice in watching something very similar happen to Joe Biden himself 6 years later. Joe Biden does not deserve our sympathy. He's being shafted, but don't weep for him.
And yet the rest of us do deserve a better system, an actual democracy. When people nobody voted for run everything, you are not living
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
This thing spawned onto our living room floor and went through Bridgett's foot. Tetanus shot. Is it actually needed or is that more medical propaganda that we've been spoon fed from a corrupt pharmaceutical industry? https://t.co/YvGwEgWbJq
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2006, I expressed concerns about Smartmatic voting machines, claiming they compromised our democracy and highlighted the need for American-run elections as a national security issue. Fast forward to 2021, and CNN labeled Lou Dobbs a liar, asserting the election was secure. I believe there are numerous election results, including those of various governors and politicians, that warrant investigation for voter fraud. I argue that Joe Biden is not the first to cheat; he's part of a larger scheme that threatens our electoral integrity. Cheating extends beyond presidential races, sparking widespread panic.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
CNN's Lou Dobbs in 2006 ~"Smartmatic voting machines means our democracy is now for sale, without anyone doing a thing about it." "American elections ought to be run by American companies. We belive this is a National Security issue." CNN in 2021 : "Lou Dobbs of Fox News is a liar, this election was secure." 🙄 Election results that need to be looked into for voter fraud - Doug Ducey Brian Kemp Gretchen Whitmer Tony Evers Andrew Cuomo Gavin Newsome Mitt Romney Mike DeWine Jay Inslee & WAY more Joe Biden wasn't the first one to cheat. He's just the doorway to all the others who did. Why do you think they all screamed there wasn't any election fraud? That's the Pandora's box they can't open cuz their own names are inside it. It's how a group of communists amassed control of our country all at once to push the Election Infection agenda. Cheating isn't limited to the Presidental section on your ballot. It's ALL areas on said ballot. Why do you think there's such mass panic? Bring the whole corrupt, disease ridden temple down....
Video Transcript AI Summary
A firm owned by Venezuela could be allowed to take over one of the country's top voting machine firms. The US company that makes the machine, Sequoia, was bought in 2005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen. When Chicago had problems with the machines, a dozen Venezuelan employees were there to help with the election.
Smartmatic is technically based in Boca Raton, Florida, but the majority of the workers are based in Venezuela. Watchdog groups question why US voting machines would be under the control of citizens of another country, especially a country whose own election process is highly suspect, calling it a national security issue.
Some in congress are demanding an investigation into Smartmatic's ownership, which is offshore and murky. The Treasury Department is supposed to monitor sales of US companies to overseas investors where there is a question of national security, but can't confirm if the sale of Sequoia in 2005 had been reviewed or not.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A firm owned by Venezuela could be allowed to take over one of this country's top voting machine firms. Venezuela, of course, led by Hugo Chavez working to change the the views of most South American countries moved to the left. Critics of the deal say our nation's very democracy is now for sale without anyone doing a thing about it. Gidi Pilgrim reports.
Speaker 1: The use of some 19,000 electronic voting machines in the city of Chicago and Cook County primary on March 21st this year is now under intense scrutiny. The US company that makes the machine, Sequoia, was bought in 2,005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen. When Chicago had problems with the machines, a dozen Venezuelan employees were there to help with the election. Chicago officials are outraged. I think that American elections ought to be run by American companies and ought to be run by American citizens, not, Venezuelan nationals.
Smartmatic is technically based in Boca Raton, Florida, but the president of the company, Jack Blaine, testified to the Chicago City Council. Fewer than a dozen Smartmatic employees work in Florida. The majority of the workers are based in Venezuela. Watchdog groups question why US voting machines would be under the control of citizens of another country, especially a country whose own election process is highly suspect. We believe this is a national security issue.
There is no way that companies belonging to non US corporations should have access to our elections. The Treasury Department is supposed to monitor sales of US companies to overseas investors where there is a question of national security, such as in the Dubai Ports deal, the so called CFIUS review process. Some in congress are demanding an investigation.
Speaker 2: In the case of, Smartmatic, there are a number of unanswered questions. That's why I wrote to the secretary of the treasury and asked them to review the ownership. It's offshore. It's murky. No one seems to know who owns it.
Certainly, our government should know.
Speaker 1: A potential risk to the democratic process. Now we called the treasury department to ask if the sale of Sequoia in 2005 had been reviewed or not. Treasury told us they were aware of the sale, but can't confirm if it's been reviewed or not. And some in congress and voter watchdog groups also are demanding a better answer than that, Lou.
Speaker 0: Well, this treasury department, is filled with incompetence. They have, stopped in over 1500 reviews, only one sale, to foreign owners American assets. But a voting machine company critical to this country's election count, and they can't tell you whether or not the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed it or not?
Speaker 1: They have no answer for us and even These
Speaker 0: are the most arrogant, incompetent, bureaucratic idiots. I mean, the treasury department is trying to move ahead of, a number of other departments in that in that category.
Speaker 1: It's incomprehensible that this would be at at in any way If we put
Speaker 0: a call into, I know John Snow is gonna short tender and, short on tenure, but perhaps somebody who works for him would have some basic sense that he owes the American people an answer.
Speaker 1: Louis, I've been trying to get the initials. They said they thought it was a company. So there are a lot of people in murky, murky territory right here, and, I think it really does deserve some examination.
Speaker 0: Great. It certainly does. We're going to continue to do so. I think we need to tip our hat to the congresswoman. She did a marvelous job in, in looking into this and, hats off to her.
At least somebody is trying to make some sense. This administration, call the White House. I I let's find out the answer so this audience knows exactly what's going on by Monday evening. And this is ridiculous. It's
Speaker 1: We are looking into it actively, Lou.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kitty. Outstanding report. It just burns me up.
reSee.it AI Summary
Child trafficking is a serious issue that needs attention. There are concerns about tech billionaires using trafficked children for their own benefit. Tucker Carlson has discussed this topic, highlighting the battle against it. The alarming number of missing children in the US raises questions about the media's lack of investigation into this pandemic.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Child Trafficking is the REAL pandemic. "Super rich tech billionaires living forever on the blood of children." Tucker Carlson hinting and dropping TRUTH BOMBS on the blood of TRAFFICKED CHILDREN being used by elites to reverse aging, which is exactly the battle we're all here fighting together to stop, as Tucker labels the segment - "How Tech Billionaires Live Forever." 800,000 children go missing in our country every year and it's been happening for DECADES! Where are all of our children going and why won't the media investigate to alert the public of the obvious child trafficking PANDEMIC?! You already know why.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I injected my dad and son with my plasma to test its effects. My dad's aging speed decreased by 25 years, but I saw no change. This practice is similar to organ transplants and blood donations. There are negative perceptions online about wealthy individuals using children's blood to live longer, which I do not endorse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Those those would not include injecting yourself with your son's blood. Right?
Speaker 1: That's right. Why'd you do that? And one day, I was talking to my dad, and he said, I need to tell you. I had this really scary situation where he said, I wrote a brief. I walked away.
I came back, and I saw that my words were a jumbled mess. I was experiencing cognitive lapse, and I wasn't aware of it. He's 71. He said, I'm terrified of losing my mind. Yes.
And I said, dad, how interesting? Because right now, the team and I are talking about plasma infusions. And so I said, if you're interested, I'm happy to give you a liter of my plasma. And then my 17 year old son was there, and he's like, hey. If you guys are doing it, I'm in.
So my son gave me a liter of plasma. I gave my dad a liter of plasma. The data showed that in me, there was no effect. But in my dad, his speed of aging reduced by 25 years.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now we're getting into the theories about taking the blood of children.
Speaker 1: So this is very common. We do organ transplants. We'd all donate blood. So it's just in a slightly different frame, but it's very much a part of Well,
Speaker 0: it's a recognizable frame. And by the way, I'm not endorsing any of this, but there is a frame, to use your word, on the Internet of, like, super rich tech billionaires living forever on the blood children. Yeah. Not an appeal not a super appealing frame, I
Speaker 1: would say. Yeah. This is that. Yeah. And we did it openly
reSee.it AI Summary
The FBI warns of potential terrorist attacks in the US, citing inspiration from the ISIS attack in Moscow. Some question Biden's decision to arm ISIS in Afghanistan and Ukraine while leaving the borders open. Criticism is also directed towards government funding of the CIA and FBI. Concerns are raised about the report being seen as predictive programming for increased control and legislation.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
FBI warns of large scale terrorist attacks on our own soil "inspired by the deadly ISIS attack in Moscow." Maybe Biden shouldn't have armed ISIS in Afghanistan and Ukraine, and then left our own borders wide open. Also, if our government truly cared about stopping terrorism, they'd STOP using our tax dollars to fund the CIA and FBI. All i see this report as is Predictive Programming that our own government is planning on killing more innocent US citizens to push more legislation to tighten the collars of control around our necks.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI and Homeland Security are warning of potential terror threats at public gatherings in the US following an ISIS attack in Moscow. Law enforcement is on alert for violence at events like sports stadiums, concerts, and places of worship. ISIS supporters are calling for similar attacks in the US after celebrating the Moscow assault. Authorities are taking the warning seriously, especially with a large crowd expected for the eclipse on Monday. ISIS remains a significant threat.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This evening, we are also following this new security warning right here in the US from the FBI and Homeland Security, warning of potential threats to public gatherings, the timing of this, and why they're concerned tonight. Here's our chief justice correspondent, Pierre Thomas, with late reporting.
Speaker 1: Tonight, FBI and Homeland Security officials are warning US law enforcement about the potential for terror inspired by that deadly ISIS attack in Moscow targeting a concert hall. The concern, according to the bulletin, violence targeting mass gatherings such as sports stadiums, concert venues, or houses of worship in the United States. Law enforcement told to be on the lookout for any suspicious activity. The bulletin coming just days before 1,000,000 will gather to watch the eclipse on Monday. Authorities say following the Moscow attack, ISIS and his supporters celebrated the assault and shared graphic and violent attack footage.
The terror group calling for similar attacks in the United States. I'm told US law enforcement is being urged to take this bulletin seriously. Sources say ISIS remains a very real threat, David.
Speaker 0: Pierre Thomas live in Washington. Pierre, thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
Julian Assange suggests that Guantanamo Bay may be involved in laundering individuals. He questions if high-profile criminals are being secretly released through controlled back-channels to Black Sites, making the arrests and the presence of 9/11 Saudi detainees at GITMO seem questionable. The post reflects a sense of skepticism and curiosity about what else might be revealed.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Julian Assange : "Guantanamo Bay is used for laundering people." I wonder if he means GITMO was possibly being used to launder high profile criminals that weren't supposed to be captured in the justice system and set them free elsewhere. Regular good guys make high profile arrests, criminals ends up being taken through specifically controlled back-channels to Black Sites only to be set free. Makes the 9/11 Saudi's at GITMO appear to be a complete dog and pony BS farce for appearance reasons. What's going to surprise us anymore?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Colombia are used to launder money and evade taxes by arms companies. Money-making is central to modern warfare and is self-perpetuating. The Official Secrets Act prohibits retaining or destroying information, leaving publishing as the only option.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Guantanamo is used for laundering people to an offshore haven, which doesn't follow the rule of law. Similarly, Iraq and Afghanistan, I and Colombia are used to wash money of the out of the US US tax base and back Arms companies. Arms companies. Yeah. I mean, what you're saying is That money and money making is at the center of modern war, and it's almost Self perpetuating.
Yes. And and it's becoming worse. We look at the Official Secrets Act label documents, we see they state that it is an offense to retain the information. And it is an offense to destroy the information, so the only possible outcome is that we have to publish the information.
reSee.it AI Summary
NBC News reported that Hillary Clinton's State Department covered up elite pedophile rings. There are concerns about funds sent to Ukraine going through the Clinton Foundation, which is linked to child trafficking. Marina Abramovic, known for controversial art performances, was asked to be ambassador for Ukraine. People are questioning the actions of our corrupt government. YouTube deleted a version of the NBC video, claiming it violated their policy on harassment and bullying. This video had over 630K views and was seen as an attempt to sway votes in the 2016/2020 Elections.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Jen Psaki helped Hillary Clinton's State Department cover up elite pedophile & human traffickin rings as reported by NBC themselves : NBC News : "Hillary Clinton's State Department covered up elite pedophile rings." We had Biden sending 20+ Billion of our tax dollars to Ukraine and to, "ensure the funds are being used responsibly", the funds were going through the Clinton Foundation. So the Clinton's, who are child traffickers and satanic pedophile protectors, are in charge of our tax dollars going to Ukraine, which itself is a hotbed for child trafficking? Meanwhile, Spirit Cooker Marina Abramovic was asked to be ambassador for Ukraine in help rebuilding schools and taking care of the children over there? Does anyone else see what our satanic, corrupt government is doing right in front of our faces? When this NBC video was Q'd, we had NO IDEA it would be Joe Biden running for President at the time, nor did we even know who Jen Psaki was, let alone know that we'd end up having Pentagon Patty become Joe Biden's White House Press Secretary. Dirty Clinton players up front & center trying to cover EVERYTHING up, whilst exposing themselves in the process. I'll stitch a 2nd clip of YouTube deleting a version of this Clinton video, that was MADE BY NBC, due to - "Violating YouTube's policy on harassment & bullying." In reality, they scrubbed this incriminating video cuz it had over 630K views & they wanted it burried from us due to the 2016 / 2020 Elections in a sad attempt to sway votes and keep President Trump winning and implimenting his plan of decimating the New World Order and their child trafficking operations. They Never Thought She Would Lose. Does everyone see it yet?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The State Department is facing serious allegations of covering up investigations into illegal and inappropriate behavior within its ranks during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. The allegations involve prostitution, pedophilia, and misconduct by State Department officials, including an ambassador and security agents. Internal documents reveal that investigations into these allegations were halted or whitewashed by high-ranking officials. A former investigator has complained about the lack of thoroughness in the investigations due to pressure from top officials. Congress is being urged to launch an investigation into these claims. The evidence is not fully substantiated, but there are concerns about the integrity of the investigations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In some serious allegations this morning facing the State Department.
Speaker 1: That's right. According to internal State Department memos, the agency might have called off or intervened an investigation into possibly illegal and inappropriate behavior within its ranks, allegedly to protect jobs and avoid scandals. This concerns time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. We want to get right to NBC's chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd with the latest. Chuck, good morning to you.
Speaker 0: Good up. Good morning, Savannah. You know, there's an old saying in Washington that the cover up is worse than the crime. But in this case, both parts of it are disturbing. Allegations of prostitution up.
And pedophilia and allegations that those crimes were somehow covered up or not looked into. So the state department this morning is having to respond to those claims up. And those investigations, involve misconduct by state department officials including by an ambassador and security agents attached up. To then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the allegations are that these investigations were whitewashed, quashed altogether, and that those orders came from high up.
Up
Speaker 2: NBC News has obtained documents related to ongoing investigations into some disturbing allegations involving state on department personnel and at least 1 ambassador. A state department memo says the ambassador, quote, routinely ditched his protective security detail up. In order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children. The memo also says a top state department official directed department investigators up. To quote, cease the investigation into the ambassador's conduct.
It's just one of what another document describes as quote, up. Several examples of undue influence from top state officials. On Monday, a state department spokesperson would not confirm specific investigations.
Speaker 3: I'm not
Speaker 4: going to talk about specific cases but I can say broadly that the notion that
Speaker 3: we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct, up, in a case, in any case is preposterous.
Speaker 2: A former investigator for the department's inspector general has complained to Congress and the media up. That the investigations have not been thorough because of the pressure from those high level officials.
Speaker 5: We take every allegation of misconduct seriously and we look into it.
Speaker 2: Up. It was less than 6 months ago that another major internal investigation painted Hillary Clinton's state department in a negative light. That scathing report up On the failed diplomatic security procedures in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
Speaker 3: What difference at this point does it make? It is our job up to figure out what happened and do everything we
Speaker 0: As we noted, the whistleblower in this case, a member of the inspector general investigative team at the State Department, up. She's gone to congress demanding an investigation, and it's our understanding congressman Ed Royce, the leading Republican in house foreign relations says up. He does plan on having an investigation, and no doubt hearings are probably gonna come soon as well, Savannah.
Speaker 1: But Chuck, where are we on this? Is it this point off allegations from 1 whistleblower. Have they been substantiated in any way?
Speaker 0: Well, what here here's what it is. The the the whistle on says that this report that the internal investigation having to do with how diplomatic security even investigated these allegations. That's where this scathing report came from. It's how the investigators somehow dropped the investigations including into this ambassador and on to some other deal, on Including on on folks that were part of security detail. So the allegations themselves haven't been fully substantiated by by us, but this inspector general whistleblower up.
Believes that the evidence was clear, but the problem was the investigation wasn't done in time to find out for sure if this misconduct was happening.
Speaker 1: Up.
reSee.it AI Summary
Jim Caviezel, known for raising awareness about child trafficking and adrenochrome, has faced backlash from the media. He is respected in Christian communities for fighting against cancel culture and exposing the hidden agenda of evil forces. Many fail to realize that evil exists and powerful individuals support it. Society needs to wake up quickly to this reality.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Jim Caviezel woke the public to Child Trafficking & the Adrenochroming of children & of course, was labeled a "Conspiracy Theorist" by fake news media, who's complicit in covering up child trafficking. Jim is WELL respected in Christian households as a voice of reason in fighting the immense amount of cancel culture that Christians face each & every day satan's army marches forward with their not-so-hidden agenda. He's opened a pathway to understanding WHY this war is being waged. The true evil that preys on our children, that exists & lurks right in front of our faces every night on Tel-a-vision. So MANY people of worship in the House of God KNOW that God exists, but fails to stop & think that evil too, not only exists & persists on this planet, but that there are MANY who root for the other team & hold powerful positions across our planet. The average human cannot see what we see. They assume because they're a good person, everyone else in the world must be a good person too. "I can't imagine anyone doing that kind of evil stuff to children." No, you can't see YOURSELF doing that kind of evil stuff to children & you're pushing a notion that all of society is just like YOU. Society needs to wake up. FAST.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Actor Jim Caviezel speaks out against child trafficking and describes adrenochrome, a substance produced by children when they are scared. The mainstream media dismisses these claims as right-wing lies, but many people are waking up to the reality of child trafficking and the exploitation of children's bodies. Caviezel warns that his film, "Sound of Freedom," may never be seen due to the involvement of famous people in Hollywood in child trafficking. He mentions the existence of deep underground bases where children are being rescued from. The truth about child trafficking is being revealed, and those responsible must face justice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you were to watch Schindler's List, you would say, boy, that was terrible. I wish I was around that. I maybe I could have done something. You can do something now because they're pulling kids out of the darkest recesses of hell right now in dumps and all kinds of places. The adrenochroming of children.
Speaker 1: Actor Jim Caviezel is being ridiculed and defamed in the mainstream news for speaking out against child trafficking. While promoting his new film Sound of Freedom based on the true story of former US government agent Tim Ballard who quit his job to devote his life rescuing children from global sex traffickers, Jim Caviezel described what adrenochrome is.
Speaker 0: Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body. I'll just simplify it. And and when you are scared, you produced adrenaline. If you're an athlete, you get in the Q4, you have adrenaline that comes out of you. If a child Knows he's going to die.
His body will, secrete this adrenaline, and they have a lot of terms that they use.
Speaker 1: The Mockingbird Media responded by firing a chorus of headlines into the brainwashed minds of the public All to the tune of adrenochrome and the consumption of children is a dangerous right wing lie, but it isn't. Millions of people waking up from the generational sleepy lie of pop culture are seeing the ugly truth, Seeing the millions of babies aborted each year sold for fetal body parts, seeing old women rub Aborted fetal tissue into their skin to appear younger and seeing official science comparing young blood To the fountain of youth. It doesn't matter how many times the lying fake news media decries QAnon, conspiracy theorists, or right wingers. Millions are now seeing what they have been busy hiding, the trafficking of children, slavery. Caviezel warned that the film may never be seen because there are very famous people in Hollywood involved in child trafficking.
Speaker 0: And once they see The ships that they transport the children in and all of this stuff. Well, there's there's no other Film like this. Our industry can't make this film, right now because of a lot of people that are involved in it all over the world that are in this. And many of these people are very famous.
Speaker 1: He even mentioned Dums.
Speaker 0: Because they're pulling kids out of the darkest recesses of hell right now and dumps and all kinds of places.
Speaker 1: Deep underground basis which we were warned about in 1995 by former government engineer turned whistleblower Phil Schneider. People have always been telling us this ugly truth. Alex Jones and David Icke, William Cooper, Mainly p Hall all the way back to Aristotle, and now it's all coming out into the open, The apocalypse, the revealing of what was once hidden. Like Plato's allegory of the cave, There are millions who keep themselves ignorantly buried in the mainstream lie, but millions of us are awakening to the evil truth, And we demand justice.
Speaker 0: And these people that do it, there'll be no mercy for them.
reSee.it AI Summary
Trump skipped the last GOP debates due to the influence of Special Interest Groups. These groups, including the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, and Fake Media, controlled the audience to create a scripted illusion of who "won" and manipulate public opinion. President Trump called out this manipulation and asserted his independence from these groups, stating that he doesn't want or need their money.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Wonder why Trump skipped the last GOP debates? The Special Interest Groups that mold the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture and Fake Media made up 100% of the audience who were there to cheer on their war horse to give the public a scripted ILLUSION of who "won", thus controlling the vote of the viewers. President Trump called it out LIVE on the spot and overcame the deck stacked agaisnt him. Asleep no more! "The RNC told us we have ALL donors in the audience and the reason they're not loving me (booing me) is because I don't WANT their money and I'm going to do the RIGHT thing for the American public. I don't WANT their money, I don't NEED their money and I'm the only one up here who can say that."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker talks about being tough and how it doesn't always work. They mention property theft from an elderly woman and the influence of donors and special interests. The speaker claims that they don't want or need the money from these groups and that they will do what's right for the American public.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He wants to be a tough guy. A lot of times, you'll have you'll have and and it doesn't work very well with you. How tough is it? A lot of times property from an elderly woman. Let me talk.
Quiet. Out of time. A lot of time. That's all of his donors and special interests out there. So, it's what it is.
That's what and by the way, let me just tell you. We needed tickets. You can't get them. You know who has the tickets for the I'm talking about to the television audience? Donors, special interests, The people that are putting up the money.
Who it is? The RNC told us, we have all donors in the audience. And the reason they're not loving me the reason they're not excuse me. The reason they're not loving me is I don't want their money. I'm gonna do the right Thing for the American public.
I don't want their money. I don't need their money. And I'm the only one up here that can say
@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
'Tis glorious. Remember, I was there. Live. At CPAC on February 28, 2021. When Trump spoke. And what did he say? HE TOLD PEOPLE TO STOP GIVING THEIR MONEY TO THE GOP AND GIVE IT TO HIM INSTEAD. And boy, have they EVER. Its reaching the point even the most committed GOP Establishment people have to admit the bleeding is reaching fatal levels. TRUMP'S BEEN TAKING 'THEIR' MONEY FOR ALMOST 3 FULL YEARS NOW. I saw this coming back in 2021. Here's the article I wrote for @tracybeanz's @UncoverDC right after Trump made it **official** he was launching a bid to make a hostile takeover of the GOP: https://uncoverdc.com/2021/04/29/an-outsider-again-trump-begins-taking-over-the-gops-fundraising You wanna know just HOW FUCKING FURIOUS the GOP Establishment is at Donald Trump? He's been STEALING THEIR MONEY and running his own slate of candidates many times in direct opposition to the GOPe slate for the very same offices. People tell me Trump is all smiles and hugs in public and has been a brutal streetfighter behind the scenes for the past several years with the GOP establishment. WELL OF COURSE. He's involved in a hostile takeover of an entrenched UniParty GOP that was directly complicit in STEALING HIS ELECTION WIN. You're SURPRISED he's knifing people and twisting arms behind the scenes as the GOPe and Con Inc. tries once again to fend him off and prevent his exposure of their fake R v D puppet show? He gets back in the White House I fully expect him to complete his utter and complete takeover of the GOP with the 2026 midterms. And his gutting of Con Inc. Don't overlook Con Inc., the people who make their bank helping the GOPe sell the fake R v D dog and pony puppet show to the public. Things are FANTASTIC for them right now. Things got back to 'normal' now that Trump was gone and replaced by Biden. They got to spend endless news cycles spinning the same useless stupid shit about the "Conservative" vs. "Progressive" civil war that keeps us all divided. They do NOT want Trump getting back in there and pulling the curtain down and showing everybody yet again how the whole "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" narrative is a fake paradigm created by the same people behind the scenes. Bush vs Al Gore. Bush vs. Kerry. Obama vs No Name. Obama vs. Romney. Only one person has ever, by some arcane act of sorcerous warlockery, beat their cheat and got in there and disrupted their fucking fake kabuki theater. Trump vs. Clinton. That forced them to make the rigging obvious for 2020. Trump vs. Biden. DO NOT EVER FORGET OR OVERLOOK THAT IT WAS CON INC. THAT **PLAYED A DIRECT ROLE** IN HELPING AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT IN WORKING HAND-IN-TRAITOROUS-GLOVE IN COMMITTING THAT CRIME OF THE CENTURY IN THE 2020 ELECTION THEFT. Its not just the GOPe we need to utterly gut, burn at the stake and then pee on the ashes and salt the ground. We need to do this to Con Inc. also. Merry Christmas.
An Outsider Again, Trump Begins Taking Over the GOP’s Fundraising
Just 3 short months ago, the GOP establishment wing in Washington D.C. and around the country were popping the champagne corks and clapping each other on the back. Sure, they’d just lost the White House and the Senate while the House narrowly remained under Democrat control, but on the bright side, DONALD J. TRUMP WAS
uncoverdc.com
reSee.it AI Summary
There are claims of an international child kidnapping ring operated by the CIA, along with allegations of government involvement in drug and weapon trafficking. The posts also mention blackmail and the influence it has on lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Additionally, there is a reference to a plan by the Rothschilds and illuminati to take over America and the world. Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson is cited as a source for some of these claims.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
"Why didn't someone investigate this international child kidnapping ring being operated by the CIA? Why are Congressman voting on Bills like the Patriot Act which takes away many of our Constitutional Rights? The REASON the Congressman & the Senators vote for these STUPID Bills is becuase many of them have been set up & framed through sex & drugs" (Blackmail) *CoughJeffreyEpsteinCough* The United States Government trafficks drugs, weapons & children. It's time to wake up. Child Trafficking Clinton White House : Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson's - satanism in Society - 👇👇👇 https://youtu.be/q4qWYv67XA4?si=fhocOVSv3BLB8C8d… ☝️☝️☝️
Video Transcript AI Summary
Every hour, around 83 children go missing in this country, which adds up to over 700,000 children disappearing each year. Additionally, an estimated 2,500 children are kidnapped and murdered annually, but the FBI refuses to investigate. There are concerns about an international child kidnapping ring operated by the CIA, and questions arise as to why congressmen vote for bills like the Patriot Act, which infringe upon our constitutional rights. It is suggested that some individuals within our government may be orchestrating terrorist acts to justify passing such bills, and that some congressmen have been manipulated through sex and drugs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, as we as I stand here and you sit there, the children are disappearing in this country at the rate of 83 per hour. That's over 700,000 children a year. Now I can go back to July 1982, the Reader's just claimed there were 100,000 children disappearing every year. There's another statistic that I find very interesting and that is that it is and that is that it is estimated 2,500 children are kidnapped and murdered in this country every year. That's an unbelievable figure.
Yet the FBI refuses to investigate it. Why doesn't somebody take some action in that area? Why didn't somebody investigate this international child kidnapping ring being operated by the CIA? Why are these congressmen voting on bills like the Patriot Act which takes away many of our constitutional rights civil liberties in the best interest of protection for our country and protection from the terrorists. Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen.
There are people in our government, a rogue outfit, whatever, I'm not sure who are actually behind these terrorist acts. And the reason they're behind the terrorist acts is so they can pass bills like the Patriot Act and the reason the congressmen and the senators vote for these stupid bills, stupid by our terms and our definition is because they've been many of them have been set up and frame through sex and drugs.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
1776 - The Rothschilds / illuminati / NWO's plan to enact 25 key goals to take over America & the rest of the world. "Drugs from Southeast Asia were being flown into the United States to various military bases in plastic bags within the bodies of the dead G.I.'s" : Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson I'll give you Patriots -> 41 <- guesses as to who that POS infilTRAITOR was, that was trafficking drugs inside the bodies of our fallen soldiers out of Southeast Asia.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses the goals of the Rothschild family to establish a one world government, as outlined by Adam Weissoff. These goals include controlling the press, corrupting the youth through sex and drugs, and placing members of the Illuminati in key government positions. The speaker then shares their involvement in the case of Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, a former Green Beret doctor convicted of murdering his wife and children. They claim that evidence was lost, stolen, and altered, and that a confession from Helena Stokley revealed that a satanic cult group was responsible for the crimes. The speaker also mentions the involvement of the cult in drug distribution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 17/76, May 1st, Adam Weissoff was commissioned by the Rothschild family to set up the goals to control and take over the world with a one world government. And Vysoft came up with 25 goals. Among these goals were control the press, corrupt the youth through sex and drugs, elect our own people, our own people meaning the Illuminati, to key positions in all levels of the government, city, county, state, and federal, and it goes on. The final goal was to take over the world the 1 world government. Information is very well documented, but we haven't got a car in this magazine His book, excuse me, Pawns in the Game.
When I retired, I had no idea What was going on? I had no idea about the Illuminati. I had no idea about Adam Vysoff. However, my first major investigation When I returned from Puerto Rico was a debt to doctor Jeffrey r McDonald case. He's a former Green Beret doctor who was convicted of murdering his wife and 2 children at Fort Bragg, February 17 1970.
He'd been tried and convicted, sentenced to 3 consecutive life I was asked by the defense team to investigate the case because they claimed that doctor McDonald was innocent. I said I would, but if I learned that he murdered his wife and 2 children, I would discontinue my investigation, no longer become involved. I want you to know I'm still working for doctor McDonald. He is an innocent man. Now once I became involved in the case, I had to read everything.
And I learned that evidence was lost, evidence was stolen, evidence was altered, and FBI agent Paul Stambaugh lied before the grand jury. And most important of all, Colette, the wife, had again, where she had fought off the assailants under her fingernails. That skin was handed over to William f Ivory, the chief investigator for the army, and it has disappeared. 10 months into the case, October 25 1980. I, through a series of circumstances, I don't have time to go into the details now, obtained a signed confession from 1 Helena Stokley.
I had 3 sessions with her 10 days each total of 30 days. Helena told me that doctor McDonald did not commit those crimes, that they were committed by her a panic cult group. And I said to myself, what's this all about? I don't know anything about Satanism. I read about it in the bible, of course, and that's about it.
But as I delved into the case, I learned that drugs from Southeast Asia were being flown into United States with various military bases in plastic bags in the bodies of the dead GIs. I further learned from Elena that her satanic cult group was involved in distributing these drugs up and down the East Coast. They were mad at doctor McDonald because he was abusive to the cults cult members and the DI's who went to the civilian hospital where he was moonlighting for relief of some sort. They went in and attacked him that night. There were total 7 involved in the crime.
She named them all for me. Right now today, I know where some of them are located. But to further check and document this, I went to the UCLA library and I found out, In fact, in the Time Magazine, January 1, 1973, there was an article about bringing drugs in plastic bag and body cavities of dead GIs. There was no question in my mind Helena was telling the truth.
reSee.it AI Summary
Robert Kagan, married to Victoria Nuland, played a role in the Iraq War and co-founded the Project for the New American Century. This project sought a "New Pearl Harbor Event" to justify invading and destabilizing several Middle Eastern countries. The 9/11 attacks provided the opportunity to invade Iraq. In Ukraine, Nuland and her associates orchestrated a coup to replace a Russia-friendly president with a US-backed regime. These same individuals were also involved in the 9/11 events.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Robert Kagan calling to assassinate President Trump? He's married to Victoria Nuland who was Dick Cheney's foreign policy advisor during the early years of the ILLEGAL Iraq War. Robert Kagan co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998. (PNAC) A project that insisted we needed a "New Pearl Harbor Event" ( 9/11 ) that would allow our foot into the Middle-East to set up the premice to invade & destroy the governments in 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq Syria Lebanon Libya Somalia Sudan Iran Under the guise of 9/11, it was accomplished with Bush’s invasion. In Ukraine, Nuland, her husband & their cabal frens saw an opportunity to poke Putin by encouraging violent protests to overthrow Russia friendly President Yanukovych & place an entirely new regime consisting of United States puppets, hostile to Russia. Here she is speaking about the coup d'etat in Ukraine, stating that JAKE SULLIVAN specifically told her she NEEDS, then Vice President Biden, to be on board with the regime change, give an atta boy & that BIDEN is willing. The same dirty cabal players responsible for the turmoil around the world, was also responsible for 9/11.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 suggests that the UN should help unite the situation, while expressing a negative view towards the EU. Speaker 1 agrees and mentions the need to prevent the Russians from sabotaging the situation. They discuss the current political dynamics and the possibility of success if they act quickly. Speaker 0 plans to work on Klitschko and suggests bringing in someone with international influence. They also mention the need to reach out to Yanukovych. Speaker 1 mentions that Biden is willing to help.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU.
Speaker 1: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will Be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And, again, the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych that. But in the meantime, there's a party of regions faction meeting going on right now, and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But, anyway, we could, we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast.
So let me work on let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep, I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to, come out here and help to midwife This thing. And then the other the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Speaker 0: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan's come back to me, VFR saying you need Biden and I Ted, probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deeds to stick. So Biden's willing.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great.
reSee.it AI Summary
The CIA's alleged involvement in JFK's assassination and the Warren Commission's exoneration of the agency are key points. Nixon's knowledge of the CIA's role and the CIA's framing of him in the Watergate scandal are significant. Ford's selection as Nixon's successor, his involvement in the Warren Commission, and the belief that corruption predates Trump are highlighted. The article emphasizes the public's growing awareness of government corruption and Trump's role in exposing it. The hope is that this will lead to a decline in Trump Derangement Syndrome. Corruption is being exposed rapidly, and the public should be outraged.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
The CIA murders JFK. The Warren Commission absolves the CIA. Nixon knows the CIA murdered JFK. 4 of the 5 Watergate burglars work for the CIA. The CIA frames Nixon for Watergate. Ford is chosen as Nixon's replacement. Ford was on the Warren Commission. How on God's Green Earth can anti-Trump liberals ACTUALLY believe corruption in government STARTED in 2016 BECAUSE of Donald Trump? The centerpiece of the downward spiral of our nation will always circle around to that fateful day on November 22nd, 1963. The day our own government murdered a sitting U.S. President on live T.V. who tried to push back against the cabal for We, The People, while a compliant media covered it all up & still does to this day. Corruption is being exposed at the inducted speed of Light. The public should be FURIOUS!!! People are starting to realize our government has been corrupt since it's inception & not only was President Trump NOT responsible for that, he's responsible for helping expose that fact. TDS should be starting to dissappear sooner than later.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American government's inner workings and the lack of history education are discussed. Richard Nixon, the most popular president, was removed from office and replaced by an unelected president. Nixon believed federal agencies were undermining the system and suggested the CIA's involvement in JFK's assassination. Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to the Nixon White House, wrote dishonest Watergate stories. Woodward's main source was Mark Felt, who ran the FBI's Cointelpro program. The agencies also worked to take down Nixon's Vice President, Spiro Agnew, who was replaced by Gerald Ford. Permanent Washington, unelected officials in federal agencies, controls the political system. General Michael Flynn, who understood the system, was targeted by the agencies. Joe Biden, who laughed at Flynn's destruction, now faces a similar fate. A better system is needed for true democracy. (144 words)
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So if you want to understand, if you really want to understand how the American government actually works at the highest levels and if you want to know why they don't teach history anymore, one thing you should know is the most popular President in American history was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon. Yet somehow, without a single vote being cast by a single American voter, Richard Nixon was kicked out of office and replaced by the only unelected president in American history. So we went for the most popular president to a president nobody voted for. Wait a minute, you may ask, why didn't I know that?
Wasn't Richard Nixon a criminal? Wasn't he despised by all decent people? No, he wasn't. In fact, if any President could claim to be the people's choice, it was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon was reelected in 1972 by the largest margin the popular vote ever recorded before or so.
Or just margin the popular vote ever recorded before or since. Nixon got 17,000,000 more votes than his opponent. Less than 2 years later, he was gone. He was forced to resign. And in his place, an obedient servant of the federal agencies called Gerald Ford took over the White House.
How did that happen? What's a long story? But here are the highlights and they tell you a lot. Richard Nixon believed that elements in the federal bureaucracy were working to undermine the American system of and had been doing that for a long time, he often said that he was absolutely right. On June 23, nineteen seventy two, Nixon met with the then CIA director, Richard Helms, at the White House during the conversation, which thankfully was tape recorded.
Nixon suggested he knew, quote, who shot John, meaning President John F. Kennedy. Nixon further implied that the CIA was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination, which we now know it was. Helms' telling response? Total silence.
Violence. But for Nixon, it didn't matter because it was already over. 4 days before, on June 19, the Washington Post did publish the first of many stories about a break in at the Watergate office building. Unbeknownst to Nixon and unreported by The Washington Post, 4 of the 5 burglars worked for the CIA. The first of many dishonest Watergate stories was written by a 29 year old Metro reporter called Bob Woodward.
Who exactly was Bob Woodward? Well, he wasn't a journalist. Bob Woodward had no background whatsoever in the news business. Instead, Bob Woodward came directly from the classified areas of the federal government. Shortly before Watergate, Woodward was a naval officer at the Pentagon, he had a top secret clearance.
He worked regularly with the intel agencies. At times, Woodward was even detailed to the Nixon White house where he interacted with Richard Nixon's top AIDS. Soon after leaving the Navy for reasons that have never been clear, Woodward was hired by the most powerful a news outlet in Washington and assigned the biggest story in the country. And just to make it crystal clear what was actually happening, Woodward's main source for his Watergate series was the deputy director of the FBI, Mark Felt. And Mark Felt ran.
And we're not making this up. The Bi's Cointelpro program, which was designed to secretly discredit political actors the federal agencies wanted to destroy people like Richard Nixon. And at the same time, those same agencies were also working to take down Nixon's elected Vice President, Spiro Agnew. In the fall of 1970 three, Agnew was indicted for tax evasion and forced to resign. His replacement was a colorless Congressman from Grand Rapids called Gerald Ford.
What was Ford's qualification for the job? Well, he had served on the Warren Commission, which absolved the CIA of responsibility for President Kennedy's murder. Nixon was strong armed into accepting Gerald Ford by Democrats in Congress. Quote, we gave Nixon no choice but Ford, Speaker of the House Carl Albert later boasted 8 months later, Gerald Ford of the Warren Commission was the President of the United States. See how that works?
So those are the facts, not speculation. All of that actually happened. None of it's secret. Most of it actually is on Wikipedia, but no mainstream news this nation has ever told that story. It's so obvious, yet it's intentionally ignored.
And as a result, permanent Washington remains in charge of our political system. Unelected lifers in the federal agencies make the biggest decisions in American government and crush anyone who tries to rein them in. And in the process, our democracy becomes a joke. Now, you may I've noticed that the very first person in the Trump administration the agencies went after was General Michael Flynn. Why Flynn?
Because Mike Flynn was a career army intel officer who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency. In other words, Mike Flynn knew exactly how the system worked, and as a result, he was capable of fighting back. 4 days after Donald Trump's inauguration, the FBI lured Mike Flynn into a meeting without his lawyer, concocted a series of fake crimes, and forced him to resign. So that's how things actually work in Washington. Let's stop lying about it.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, looped like a hyena when the Justice Department destroyed Mike Flynn. So there is, we have to say, a certain perverse justice in watching something very similar happen to Joe Biden himself 6 years later. Joe Biden does not deserve our sympathy. He's being shafted, but don't weep for him. And yet the rest of us do deserve a better system, an actual democracy.
When people nobody voted for run everything, you are not living
reSee.it AI Summary
In 1976, the CDC pushed an untested and dangerous swine flu vaccine on 45 million citizens, resulting in injuries and deaths. The recent Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine also had discrepancies, with the public receiving a different version than the one tested in clinical trials. This undisclosed version had contaminated vials and excessive amounts of residual DNA. The CDC's history of questionable actions raises concerns about the current vaccine rollout. History seems to be repeating itself. #CrimesAgainstHumanity
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
History Repeating Itself - Have We Learned Nothing? 1976 Swine Flu Vax This 60 minutes piece by Mike Wallace, Chris Wallace's father, exposes how how the CDC fabricated an illness, then pushed an untested & dangerous vaccine on 45 Million citizens causing thousands of injuries as well as deaths. Wait until the last few minutes of this clip. CBS put out an ominous warning for the technological takeover & the enslavement our species. Straight Orwellian messege. 😳
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1976, the US government urged everyone to get a swine flu shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak. However, 4,000 Americans are now claiming damages totaling $3.5 billion due to neurological damage or death caused by the shot. One woman, Judy Roberts, became paralyzed and was diagnosed with Guillain Barre Syndrome. The government's advertising campaign featured famous people who supposedly took the shot, but many of them denied it. Doctor Michael Hatwick, who worked on the swine flu program, claims he informed his superiors about the possibility of neurological complications, but they deny being aware. Judy Roberts and others are still waiting for their day in court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the US government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak of pandemic. Well, 46,000,000 of us obediently took the shot. And now 4000 Americans are claiming damages from uncle Sam amounting to 3 and a half $1,000,000,000 because of what happened when they took that shot. By far, the greatest number of the claims, 2 thirds of them, are for neurological damage or even death.
Speaker 1: This virus Was the cause of a pandemic in 1918 and 1919 that resulted in over half a 1000000 deaths in the United States As well as 20,000,000 deaths around the world.
Speaker 2: See how easy it is to
Speaker 0: Thus, the US government's publicity machine was cranked into action to urge all America to To protect itself against the swine flu menace.
Speaker 2: Influenza is serious business. During major flu epidemics, millions of people are sick and 1,000 die. Well, this year, you can get protection. The vaccines are safe, easy to take, and they can protect you against flu. So roll up your sleeve.
Protect yourself.
Speaker 0: One of those who did roll up her sleeve was Judy Roberts. She was perfectly healthy, an active woman, when in November of 1976, She took her shot. 2 weeks later, she says she began to feel a numbness starting up her legs.
Speaker 3: By the following week, I was totally paralyzed.
Speaker 0: So completely paralyzed, in fact, that they had to operate on her to enable her to breathe. And for 6 months, Judy Roberts was a quadriplegic. The diagnosis? A neurological disorder called Guillain Barre Syndrome. This disease can even kill.
Indeed, there are 300 claims now pending from the families of GBS victims who died, allegedly as a result of the swine flu shot. Judy, why did you take the flu shot?
Speaker 3: I'd never taken any other flu shots, but I felt like this was going to be a major epidemic. And the only way to prevent a major epidemic of a a really deadly variety of flu was for everybody to be immunized.
Speaker 0: As part of informing Americans about the swine flu threat, doctor Censors' CDC also helped create the advertising to get the public to take The shot.
Speaker 4: Swine flu? Man, I'm too fast today to catch me.
Speaker 5: If you want to be protected. Get a shot of protection. The swine flu shot.
Speaker 0: Let me read to you from one of your own agencies' memos planning the campaign to urge Americans to take the shot. The swine flu vaccine has been taken by many important persons, He wrote. Example, president Ford, Henry Kissinger, Elton John, Muhammad Ali, Mary Tyler Moore, Rudolph Nureyev, Walter Cronkite, Ralph Nader, Edward Kennedy, etcetera, etcetera. Did you talk to these people beforehand to find out if they plan to take the show? I did not know.
Did anybody? I do not know. Did you get permission to use their names in your campaign? I do not know. Mary, did you take a swine flu shot?
Speaker 6: No. I did not.
Speaker 0: Did you give them permission to use your name saying that you had or were going to?
Speaker 6: Absolutely not. Never did.
Speaker 0: Did you ask your own doctor about taking the swine flu shot?
Speaker 6: Yes. And at the time, he thought it might be a good idea. But I resisted it because I was leery of having the symptoms that sometimes go with that kind of inoculation.
Speaker 0: So you didn't?
Speaker 6: No. I didn't.
Speaker 0: Have you spoken to your doctor since?
Speaker 6: Yes. And? He's delighted that I didn't take that shot.
Speaker 0: Doctor Michael Hatwick Directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program at the CDC. His job was to find out what possible complications could arise from taking the shot And to report his findings to those in charge. Did you know ahead of time, doctor Hatwick, that there had been case reports Of neurological disorders, neurological illness, apparently associated with the injection of influenza vaccine. Absolutely. You
Speaker 7: did? Yes.
Speaker 0: How'd you know that? By review of the literature. So you told your superiors, the men in charge of the swine flu immunization program, About the possibility of neurological disorders.
Speaker 7: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: What would you say if I told you that your superiors say that you never told them About the possibility of neurological complications.
Speaker 7: That's nonsense. I can't believe that they would say that they did not know That there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that. I've said that doctor Hatwick never told me of, his feelings on this subject, and he's lying.
I guess you would have to make that assumption. Then why does this report
Speaker 0: From your own agency, dated July 1976, list neurological complications as a possibility. I think the
Speaker 7: Consensus of, the scientific community was that the evidence relating Neurologic disorders to influenza immunization, was such that they did not feel that this association was a real one.
Speaker 0: You didn't feel it was necessary to tell the American people that information?
Speaker 7: I think that, over the the years, we have tried to Inform the American people as as fully as possible.
Speaker 2: The vaccines are safe, easy to take, and they can protect you against flu.
Speaker 8: I Ask told Judy to take the shot. She wasn't gonna take it and, she never had had shots. And, I'm mad with my government because they knew the facts, But they didn't release those facts because they if they had released them, the people wouldn't have taken. And they can come out tomorrow and tell me there's gonna be an epidemic, And they can drop off like flies next to me. I will not take another shot that my government tells me to take.
Speaker 0: Meantime, Judy Roberts and some 4,000 others like her are still waiting for their day in court.
Speaker 4: This is the CBS Television Network.
Speaker 9: What cigarette do you smoke? You'll be interested to know how the doctors of America answered that question. Tens of thousands of doctors, doctors in all parts of the country, in every state of the union, doctors in every branch of
Speaker 4: medicine were asked, What cigarette do
Speaker 9: you smoke, doctor? In this nationwide survey of general practitioners, surgeons, throat specialists, Diagnosticians and so on, the brand named most was Camel.
Speaker 4: Yes. According to this survey, more doctors smoke Camel's Than any other cigarette. Try Camel's yourself. Make the one sensible cigarette test. Make your own 30 day camel mildness Test in your t zone.
Smoke only Camels for 30 days. Enjoy Camel's rich, full flavor, And see how well camels agree with your throat pack after pack, week after week. See for yourself why camels are so popular With the doctors of America.
Speaker 3: Bet you want what I got. Health and field with a lot of help from Ultra
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 11: What makes ultra bright a health appeal toothpaste? A smile that shines its natural whitest, sparkling clean breath, and Evony fighting fluoride. It's an actual attraction. It's your culture right.
Speaker 3: The health appeal toothpaste.
Speaker 5: And the healthiest 55 year old you ever seen. Hey. I pricked off every weekend. Get a shot of protection, the swine flu shot.
Speaker 10: Joe brought it home from the office. He gave it to Betty and one of his kids Enter Betty's mother. But Betty's mother went back to California the next day. On her way to the airport, she gave it to a cab driver,
Speaker 3: A ticket engine and one
Speaker 10: of the charming stewardesses. At school, Joe's kid gave it to some other kids, And missus Merrill got it
Speaker 3: and gave it to her husband.
Speaker 10: In California, Betty's mother gave it to her best Friend Dottie. But Dottie had a heart condition and she died. But before she died, Dottie gave it to her girlfriend, the mailman, The paperboy and the vet when she went to pick up her July.
Speaker 5: If a swine flu epidemic comes, this is how it could Bread, you want to be protected, especially if you're elderly or chronically ill. Get a shot of protection, the swine flu shot.
Speaker 9: Nose, throat, and accessory organs not adversely affected by smoking Chesterfield's. 1st such report ever published about any cigarettes, and it applies only to Chesterfield.
Speaker 12: A responsible consulting organization reports this study by a competent medical specialist and his staff on the effects of smoking Chesterfields. A group of people smoked only Chesterfields for 6 months in their normal amount, 10 to 40 a day. 45% of the group Have smoked Chesterfield's from 1 to 30 years for an average of 10 years each. At the beginning and end of the 6 months period, each smoker was given a thorough examination including X rays. The examination covered the sinuses, nose, ears, and throat.
After a thorough examination of every member of the group, The medical specialist stated, it is my opinion that the ears, nose, throat, and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me Were not adversely affected in the 6 months period by smoking the cigarettes provided. Remember this Report and buy Chesterfield's, regular or king-size. Premium quality Chesterfield, much milder.
Speaker 9: CBS presents this program in color.
Speaker 13: Our ads of the last few weeks, different from what you usually see, have tried to raise Questions we feel are extremely important. As the 1st generation of the technological society, We have been acted upon by forces of such power that few, if any of us, can understand. Extensive information gathering on every American, Human experiments with drugs and psychosurgery, electronic surveillance, the era of the computer invasion of privacy, Growing government and corporate power over our lives, a people plagued by dehumanization, loneliness, and violence. Dramatic? Perhaps.
But we are losing control of our technology and our lives. Not so long ago, people in a similar situation did not awaken to the forces around them. Are we so unwise as to do the same?
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
CDC Director vaccinated 45 Million people for Swine Flu despite having never been a single confirmed case of said virus? 😳 🤡 Not ONLY that, but the tested vaccine was SWAPPED OUT for a different vaccine that was purely experimental just prior to the vaccine rollout. 😳 Listen to this chronic liar being grilled about his genocidal endeavor. History is repeating itself. Wallace : "You began to give flu shots to the American people in October of 1976. By that time, how many cases of Swine Flu around the world had been reported" CDC Director : "There had been several reported cases, but none confirmed. There had been cases in Australia reported by the Press, The Media, but none confirmed" #CrimesAgainstHumanity
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. David Sensor, former head of the CDC, developed and promoted the swine flu program. However, there were no confirmed cases of swine flu reported worldwide at the time. The CDC created a consent form for the public, but it failed to mention that a different vaccine, X53A, was given to most of the 46 million people who received the shot. The consent form also did not warn about potential serious complications. People who experienced adverse reactions, such as heart attacks or Guillain-Barre syndrome, felt they should have been informed. Dr. Michael Hatwick, who oversaw surveillance for the program, claims he did inform his superiors about the possibility of neurological disorders, despite their denial. The CDC also used the names of prominent individuals who took the shot in their campaign without obtaining permission.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor David Sensor, then head of the CDC, the Center For Disease Control in Atlanta, is now in private industry. He devised the swine flu program and he pushed it. You began to give flu shots to the American people in October of 76 October 1st. By that time, how many cases of swine flu around the world
Speaker 1: had been reported? There had been several reported, but none confirmed. There had been cases in Australia that were reported by the press, by the news media, there were cases in None confirmed.
Speaker 0: Did you ever uncover any other outbreaks of swine flu Anywhere in the world? No. Now nearly everyone was to receive the shot in a public health facility where a doctor might not be present. Therefore, it was up to the CDC to come up with some kind of official consent form giving the public all the information it needed about the swine flu shot. This form stated that the swine flu vaccine had been tested.
What it didn't say was that after those tests were completed, the scientists developed another vaccine. And that was the one given to most of the 46,000,000 who took the shot. That vaccine was called X 53 a. Was X 53A Everfield tested?
Speaker 1: I I can't say I would have to. It wasn't? I don't know.
Speaker 0: Well, I would think that you're in charge of the program.
Speaker 1: I would have to check, the records. I haven't looked at this in some time.
Speaker 0: The information form, the consent form, was also supposed to warn people about any risks of serious complications following the shot. But did it?
Speaker 2: No. I had never heard of any reactions other than a sore arm, fever, this sort of thing.
Speaker 0: Judy Roberts' husband, Gene, also took the shot.
Speaker 2: Yes. I looked at that document. I signed it. Nothing on there said I was gonna have a heart attack or I can get Guillain Barre, which I never heard of.
Speaker 0: What if people from the government from the Center For Disease Control what if they had indeed known about it? What would be your feeling?
Speaker 2: They should have told us.
Speaker 0: Did anyone ever come to you and say, you know something, fellas? There's the possibility of neurological damage If you get into a mass immunization program? No. No one ever did? No.
Do you know Michael Hatwig?
Speaker 1: Yes, mhmm.
Speaker 0: Doctor Michael Hatwick directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program at the CDC. His job was to Find out what possible complications could arise from taking the shot and to report his findings to those in charge. Did you know ahead of time, doctor Hatwick, That there had been case reports of neurological disorders, neurological illness apparently associated With the injection of influenza vaccine? Absolutely. You did?
Yes. How'd you know that?
Speaker 1: By review of the literature.
Speaker 0: So you told your superiors, the men in charge of the swine flu immunization program, about the possibility of neurological disorders?
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: What would
Speaker 0: you say if I told you that your superiors say that you never told them about the possibility of neurological complications?
Speaker 2: That's nonsense. I can't believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that.
Speaker 1: I've said that doctor Hatwick had never told me of, his feelings on this subject. And he's lying. I guess you would have to
Speaker 0: make that assumption. And why does this report From your own agency, dated July 1976, list neurological complications as a possibility. I think the
Speaker 1: Consensus of, the scientific community was that the evidence relating Neurologic disorders to influenza immunization, was such that they did not feel that this association was a real one.
Speaker 0: You didn't feel it was necessary to tell the American people that information?
Speaker 1: I think that, over the the years, we have tried to inform the American people as as fully as possible.
Speaker 0: As part of informing Americans about the swine flu threat, doctor Censors' CDC also helped create the Let me read to you from one of your own agency's memos planning the campaign Pain to urge Americans to take the shot. The swine flu vaccine has been taken by many important persons, he wrote. Example, President Ford, Henry Kissinger, Elton John, Muhammad Ali, Mary Tyler Moore, Rudolf Nureyev, Walter Cronkite, Ralph Nader, Edward Kennedy, Etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: True? I'm not familiar with that particular piece of paper, but I do know that at least of that group, President Ford did take the vaccination.
Speaker 0: Did you talk to these people beforehand to find out if they planned to take the shot?
Speaker 1: I did not know.
Speaker 0: Did anybody? I do not know. Did you get permission to use their names in your campaign?
reSee.it AI Summary
Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer exposed massive corruption in Child Protective Services (CPS), calling it legal kidnapping. Her report, "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services," cost her Senate seat. Despite the consequences, she believed in fighting for causes worth losing over. Schaefer aimed to expose the CPS corruption at all levels, even linking it to crimes against humanity for financial gain. Tragically, she and her husband were murdered in their home. The system's financial incentives, dating back to 1974, encourage seizing children for profit and increasing adoption numbers. CPS has been accused of operating as a child trafficking agency.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer exposed MASSIVE corruption inside Child Protective Services calling it, "Legal Kidnapping." Her report is called : "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services." "The report cost me my Senate seat. However, there are causes worth losing over, & this is one." In her fight to #SaveTheChildren & expose the MASSIVE corruption in CPS all the way up to the Federal level, in which she called "Crimes Against Humanity For Financial Gain", she would later go on to lose her life over it, murdered. Shot in cold blood in her home, along with her husband. "Children are seized intentionally for profit due to the Federal Aid created in 1974 that offers financial incentives to the states that increase adoption numbers & to get those bonuses, local CPS must have more children / product to sell." CPS is a child trafficking agency.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Nancy Schaeffer, a former Georgia State Senator, discusses the problems with Child Protective Services (CPS) and the corrupt practices within the system. She highlights how children are unnecessarily removed from their homes for profit, with financial incentives given to states that increase adoption numbers. Schaeffer emphasizes the abuse of power, lack of accountability, and the negative impact on families and children. She calls for an independent audit of CPS departments, the removal of financial incentives, the opening of family court, and the protection of parents' rights. Schaeffer concludes by urging for reform and the defense of children's rights.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Nancy Schaeffer, and, I'm from the state of Georgia in the United States. And, thank you for your gracious invitation to join you tonight. And, thanks to all of you who have made this incredible World Congress of Families number 5 in Amsterdam possible. It's a privilege for me to join you tonight and, to be with you in some pro family policy here. I will share with you on the unlimited power of child protective services.
I served in the Georgia State Senate. And after 4 years viewing the ruthless and unsparing actions of child protective services, also called CPS, this which I will use tonight. I wrote a scathing report entitled The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services. Thank you. The report cost me my senate seat.
Here's some copies of the report if you'd like to get one. However, there are causes worth losing over. And this is 1. I'm going to, to talk about some of the problems and then some realistic, maybe, solutions, for families and children and, maybe look to some steps that we can take. This is not to say that there are not those children in rigid situations who need to be removed.
There are, and we all agree. But tonight, I'm talking about those children removed from their homes intentionally for profit. Children are seen intentionally for profit. Children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to the federal aid created in 1974 entitled the Adoption and Safe Families act. It offers financial incentives to the states that increase adoption numbers.
To receive the adoption incentives or bonuses, local CPS must have more children. They must have more merchandise to sell. Funding is available when a child is placed in a foster home with strangers are placed in a mental health facility and medicated usually against the parents' wishes. Parents are victimized by the system that makes a profit for holding children longer and bonuses for not mature returning children to their parents. This is abuse of power.
It is lack of accountability, and it is a growing criminal political phenomenon spreading around the globe. Oftentimes, but not always, poor parents are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the wherewithal to hire an attorney or fight the system, being poor and lacking proper housing does not mean your children should be removed. CPS has redefined poor to mean psychologically inferior. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the child to be removed. Best interest, of course, has also been redefined at the child's expense.
It has been reported over and over that 6 times as many children die in foster care than in the general public. Once the child is legally kidnapped and placed in official safety, the child is far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation and or rape. Case workers and social workers are often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence, and they seek wrongly to terminate parental rights while being protected by state immunity. There is a huge bureaucracy made up of judges, court appointed attorneys, guardian ad litems, social workers, state employees, court investigators, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, foster parents, adoptive parents and on and on who are looking to the children in state care for their job security.
Judges have control over private living arrangements and income of 48,300,000 Americans. The United States Census Bureau reported in 2002 that 40,000,000,000 in transfer payments were made between households of custody parents and other parents. That money, um40,000,000,000 is under the direction and control of family court judges in the environments covered with confidentiality laws that protect the wrong people. Fathers are victims of this unjust system. Child support payments, even without having visits with their children, are choking the very life out of fathers.
3 fathers of whom I am aware and have been in touch with committed suicide in the last 12 months because they lost the opportunity to even visit with their children. These are crimes against humanity for financial gain. Rights are removed from parents. Human rights, civil rights, and even religious rights. One illustration of what took place in my district is that after so many calls, I decided to call a meeting in one of the counties of my own district.
I personally called 37 families that had been in touch with me who all lost their children, grandchildren. I had them meet me at in the library 1 Saturday morning. We started at 9 o'clock, and we ended at 9 o'clock. We had 50 families standing outside the door that could not get in. We didn't have time to talk with them.
There was incredible anguish and profound suffering from these families. Some children had been taken off the school bus, taken out of the hospitals, or taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and even worse. It was just an incredible ordeal. These parents trapped in the system become like refugees. They're dazed and glazed and have no one of whom to turn.
They do not know what to do, and the loss of their children is devastating. After having worked in this arena for several years, I do not believe that a single child comes out whole after having been in this system. Many foster children make up the homeless population of today. I introduced legislation, Senate Bill 4 15 in my last session. A substitute bill was written at the last a minute by the chairman of the Judicial Committee, all the strong points of my bill had been compromised.
I was told, accept it, senator. At least you will get your let some legislation asked. And I answered with, obviously, you do not know me. I did not come to the capital to get legislation passed. I came to make a difference.
What can be done? An independent audit should be called on every state of all child protective services department. I'm in touch with congressmen and state officials, and the door may be possibly opening very slowly. A federal congressional hearing is needed. But let me add, due to the hundreds upon hundreds of cases that I've been called to consider, I placed calls to state senators, representatives in their respective states across the country, asking them to help me with certain families.
And I was told if I help that family or if I help you, I will lose my job. Remove, abolish the federal and state financial incentives, and those are taxpayer dollars. Those dollars have been turned have turned CPS into a business that takes children and separates families for money. Open family court. Remove the confidence the confidentiality laws.
Give parents their rights verbally and in writing. I even feel that to terminate the rights of parents. The case should be heard before a jury. Family rights and parents' rights must be protected. We do not need more influence like the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It's anti parent, anti child, and anti common sense for the family. There has to be perseverance for any great reform, and great reform is needed in this area. As Charles Spurgeon put it, how do you tame a lion that is well fed? First, he must be brought down. 2nd, his stomach must be lowered.
How do you obtain child protective services? It may be only by closing it completely and starting over at the beginning with Pro Family Values. In closing, let me remind you that there is case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the United States Supreme Court, all of which affirm the constitutionality of the rights of parents to actually be parents to their children. There's biblical law too. It goes like this.
Speak up for those who can't speak for themselves and for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly. Defend the rights
reSee.it AI Summary
Jen Psaki allegedly helped cover up elite pedophile rings during her time at Hillary Clinton's State Department, as reported by NBC. Now, Biden is sending $20 billion to Ukraine through the Clinton Foundation. This raises concerns as Ukraine is known for child trafficking. Marina Abramovic, a controversial figure, was asked to be Ukraine's ambassador. It's alarming how our corrupt government operates right in front of us. NBC's incriminating video was deleted, possibly to prevent Trump from exposing the New World Order's child trafficking operations. The truth is becoming clearer.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Jen Psaki helped Hillary Clinton's State Department cover up elite pedophile & human traffickin rings as reported by NBC themselves : NBC News : "Hillary Clinton's State Department covered up elite pedophile rings." Now we have Biden sending 20+ Billion of our tax dollars to Ukraine and to, "ensure the funds are being used responsibly", the funds are going through the Clinton Foundation. So the Clinton's, who are child traffickers and satanic pedophile protectors, are in charge of our tax dollars going to Ukraine, which itself is a hotbed for child trafficking? Meanwhile, Spirit Cooker Marina Abramovic was asked to be ambassador for Ukraine in help rebuilding schools and taking care of the children over there? Does anyone else see what our satanic, corrupt government is doing right in front of our faces? When this NBC video was Q'd, we had NO IDEA it would be Joe Biden running for President at the time, nor did we even know who Jen Psaki was, let alone end up having Pentagon Patty become Joe Biden's White House Press Secretary. Dirty Clinton players up front & center trying to cover EVERYTHING up, whilst exposing themselves in the process. I'll stitch a 2nd clip of YouTube deleting a version of this Clinton video, that was MADE BY NBC, due to - "Violating YouTube's policy on harassment & bullying." In reality, they scrubbed this incriminating video cuz it had over 630K views & they wanted it burried from us due to the 2016 / 2020 Elections in a sad attempt to stop President Trump from running, and winning, so he can collapse the New World Order and their child trafficking operations. Does everyone see it yet? https://youtu.be/h77arWZWlSQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The State Department is facing serious allegations of covering up investigations into illegal and inappropriate behavior within its ranks. The allegations involve prostitution, pedophilia, and misconduct by State Department officials, including an ambassador and security agents under Hillary Clinton's tenure. Internal memos suggest that these investigations were whitewashed and halted by high-ranking officials. A whistleblower from the Inspector General's team has gone to Congress demanding an investigation. While the allegations haven't been fully substantiated, the whistleblower believes there is clear evidence. Congressman Ed Royce plans to conduct an investigation. This comes after a previous negative report on the State Department's handling of the Benghazi attack.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And some serious allegations this morning facing the State Department.
Speaker 1: That's right. According to internal State Department memos, the agency might have called off or intervened an investigation into possibly illegal and inappropriate behavior within its ranks, allegedly to protect jobs and avoid scandals. This concerns the time that Hillary Clinton was criteria state.
Speaker 2: We want
Speaker 1: to get right to NBC's Chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd with the latest. Chuck, good morning to you.
Speaker 0: Good morning, Savannah. You know there's an old saying in Washington that the cover up is worse than the crime. But in this case both parts of it are disturbing. Allegations of prostitution and pedophilia and allegations that those Crimes were somehow covered up or not looked into. So the State Department this morning is having to respond to those claims and those investigations is of misconduct by State Department officials including by an ambassador and security agents attached to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
And the allegations are that these investigations were whitewashed, quashed altogether and that those orders came from high up.
Speaker 2: NBC News has obtained documents related to ongoing investigations into some disturbing allegations involving state department personnel and at least 1 ambassador. A state department memo says the ambassador, quote, routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children. The memo also says a top state department official directed department investigators To quote cease the investigation into the ambassador's conduct. It's just one of what another document describes as quote Several examples of undue influence from top state officials. On Monday, a State Department spokesperson would not confirm specific investigations.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to talk about specific cases but I can say broadly that the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case, in any case is preposterous.
Speaker 2: Reporter A former investigator for the department's inspector general has complained to Congress and the media That the investigations have not been thorough because of the pressure from those high level officials.
Speaker 3: We take every allegation of misconduct seriously and we look into it.
Speaker 2: It was less than 6 months ago that another major internal investigation painted Hillary Clinton's State Department in a negative light. That scathing report on the failed diplomatic security procedures in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
Speaker 3: What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we need.
Speaker 0: As we noted the whistleblower in this case, a member of the Inspector General investigative team at the State Department. She's gone to Congress demanding an investigation and it's our understanding Congressman Ed Royce, the leading Republican in House Foreign Relations He does plan on having an investigation and no doubt hearings are probably gonna come soon as well, Savannah.
Speaker 1: But Chuck, where are we on this? Is at this point just allegations from 1 whistleblower? Have they been substantiated in any way?
Speaker 0: Well, what here here's what it is. The the the whistleblower says that this report that the internal investigation having to do with how Diplomatic security even investigated these allegations. That's where this scathing report came from. It's how the investigators somehow dropped The investigations including into this ambassador and on to some other deal including on on folks that were part of security detail. So the allegations themselves haven't been fully substantiated by by us but this inspector general whistleblower believes that the evidence was clear.
But the problem was the investigation wasn't done in time to find out for sure if this misconduct was happening.
Speaker 1: More to come on this for sure Chuck Todd. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Alright. And we are
reSee.it AI Summary
On 9/11, Bush Sr. and bin Laden's meeting with Carlyle Group set the stage for profiting in the Middle East. War boosts defense industry. Bush, bin Laden, and Carlyle Group aimed to profit from 9/11. They destroyed the Middle East using their own weapons and defense agencies, then rebuilt it using their own contracting companies. They rigged elections to silence opposition. This group is what Eisenhower and JFK warned us about. They even funded JFK museum but omitted his criticism of corporate and banking elites. They are our invisible enemy. Watch this.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
The morning of 9/11 - Bush Sr / bin Ladens / Carlyle Group meeting = setting up the premice of profiting in the Middle-East "War-time is boom-time for the defense industry." Bush / bin Laden / Carlyle Group. 9/11 = Profit - > Destory the Middle-East using their own Weapons Defense Agencies = $$$ 'Re-build' Middle-East using their own contracting companies = $$$ Rig elections to rid any opposition in political office speaking out against them. This is the group Eisenhower & John F Kennedy SPECIFICALLY warned us about. [They] funded 2.25 Million Dollars to remodel The John F Kennedy museum in Boston. [They] added JFK's infamous Moon Speech, as well as his, "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You" speech, but omitted JFK railing against the growing power of the corporate / banking elite. [Them]. This is part of our invisible enemy. Watch this.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Carlyle Group held their annual investor meeting in Washington, D.C. on September 11th. Frank Carlucci, James Baker, and David Rubinstein, along with Shafiq bin Laden, were present when the events of September 11th unfolded. It was later revealed that the bin Laden family had invested in Carlyle, and George H.W. Bush had met with them in Saudi Arabia. Carlyle profited greatly during the Gulf War and continued to recruit influential politicians like George Bush and James Baker. These individuals have the ability to predict global market trends and influence government policies that benefit their investments. The Carlyle Group operates in a gray area, with some members working on a retainer or through ambiguous payment methods.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On September 11th, in somewhat of a a horrible coincidence, the Carlyle Group was holding their annual investor meeting here in Washington, D. C, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel. George Brescini was at the meeting. The Carlyle Group said that he left right before September 11th, and was on his way to some location in the Midwest. And I talked to someone who was at the meeting and they told me that, The whole crew of Carlyle, including Frank Carlucci, and James Baker, and David Rubinstein, along with Shafiq bin Laden, who was a representative of the bin Laden family, and their fortunes, We're all in the same room together watching the events of September 11th take place.
And I was totally shocked. I just couldn't believe that the all these people We're in the same room. We're actually these events happen. You know, it's just to to see a confluence of international people of such political influence and intrigue, to be gathered at the same place at the same time or something that affects all of them in completely different ways, took place was just an amazing, amazing scene in my mind.
Speaker 1: One of the more embarrassing things that happened was after September 11th, It emerged that the bin Laden family construction company had some money in Carlyle. And after initially denying this, it ended up that George Herbert Walker Bush had met with members of the Bin Laden family, in one of his trips to Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: The Bin Laden family had been introduced to Carlyle far Many years before president Bush ever became associated with Carlyle. And they were introduced in a quite legitimate way As a potential investor in in one of our investment funds, which they did invest in. And in addition, we offered up and did perform certain Financial advisory worked in connection with an investment they were thinking about and indeed one that they did make in the United States where there was simply hard business Analysis and advice rendered. I can tell you, Bakr bin Laden in his wildest imagination, I suspect never imagine Then that Osama would go and do what he did. So then you roll forward 3 or 4 years and all of a sudden 9/11 has happened and and the first thing you know was, well, president Bush is associated with Carlyle and Carlyle has some bin Laden money.
Well, what's going on here?
Speaker 0: War time is boom time for the defense industry. So once the Gulf War hit, these properties skyrocketed again. And Carlyle made a ton of money. They did very, very well. They really cleaned up, during that 3 or 4 year swing.
And, after that, Carlyle said, hey, you know, having these Politicians on board is pretty great. I mean, they know things that nobody else knows. In fact, you know, Frank Carlucci was setting up policies fees while he was in office as secretary of defense that he's now capitalizing on as chairman of Carlyle Group. And, you know, it's It's a brilliant scheme if you think about it. You set up the policies, you leave office, you go into business, and then you exploit those policies.
They picked up George Bush, James Baker, Richard Sir, Darman is over there, who is a former budget director in the White House. Arthur Levitt, the former SEC Chairman. William Kennard, the former FCC Chairman. In Europe, you have Former Prime Minister of England, John Major Karl O'Neill Pourre from
Speaker 1: the head of the German Central Bank Eberhard Kunhay was the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BMW, the Asia part, former prime minister of Thailand, former president of the Philippines, Fidel Dean Swede Ramos. And at one point, APPLA, the former prime minister of South Korea was on their board, a man named Mr. Park, who used to head up the largest Steel company in in South Korea.
Speaker 0: The list just goes on and on and on. So these guys carry a tremendous amount of influence. And they are able to predict trends in global markets, predict trends in political, political shifts. And in some ways, and this is the sort of the most insidious part, and if you if you want to be cynical about the Carlyle Group, you have to be concerned about their ability to influence these trends and actually affect change in government policy, which would positively affect their investments. Former government officials tended Before Carlyle to go to, academic institutions or they tended
Speaker 2: to, some just retired or many of them became lobbyists. Well, for someone like Jim Baker who really had been at the pinnacle of American power for over 10 years, he'd been chief of staff, he'd been secretary of the treasury, ultimately secretary of state, For Jim Baker to be a lobbyist or even to be a lawyer was not something that was terribly interested in him.
Speaker 0: If you're a Republican during a democratic administration in the White House, for example, someone like James Baker. You're able to revolve out of the White House into the Carlyle Group, work there for a period of time. And then when that Democratic administration is through, like Clinton's was through in 2000, you're able to revolve right back into the White House. Colin Powell did that. Colin Powell did a little consulting for the Carlyle Group.
He knows the guys very well. He knows Frank Carlucci very well. Frank Carlucci was his mentor, as he came up through the ranks. And I think his relationship with the Carlyle Group personifies the gray area, that the Carlyle Group works within. Some of these guys are never officially hired.
You know, some of them are only put on retainer. Some of them are paid in, very ambiguous ways like, through investments that they make through the Carlyle Group or the amount of money that they helped raise, That kind of thing. So it's it's never really clear at any given time who exactly is working for the Carlyle Group. No one really knows, unless, you You know, they officially unless unless the Carlyle Group wants you to know.
Speaker 1: If the Carlyle Group wants you
Speaker 0: to know, then they put them up on the website and they put them in their brochures, and that kind of thing. But if you look on the Carlyle website today, you don't see George Bostinger's name anywhere, although he is working for the Carlyle Group.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
Only Joe Biden could get away with admitting Lahaina fires were started intentionally by saying he put people in place to monitor the situation BEFORE the fires even started. Climate Change is fake. Climate Terrorism is real. How will his White House press secretary walk this comment back?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Last week, I appointed Bob Fenton, a top emergency manager, to lead the long-term recovery efforts on Maui. He has been on the ground since before the fires started and will ensure that the community receives all the support the federal government can provide to heal and rebuild quickly. I will receive a virtual report from him on Maui after this meeting. Our goal is to restore the island to its previous state, but even better.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Want to restore that part of the island like it was before only better. To that end when I was on the island last week I appointed Bob Fenton, one of the nation's leading emergency managers. And I mean that that's not hyperbole, who's been on the ground in Hawaii since before the fires erupted as our chief federal response coordinator to lead our long term recovery on Maui. I've charged him with making sure the community has everything, everything the federal government can offer to heal and build back better as fast as possible. You know, he'll be giving me a report virtually on Maui when I walk out of this room and go to the cabinet room for our meeting just a few minutes.
reSee.it AI Summary
ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek, known for debunking Pizzagate, has pleaded guilty to disturbing child sex crimes. Meek, 53, was indicted on child rape charges and was found to be involved in sharing explicit child pornography. Shockingly, he discussed his desire to rape young children and even fantasized about abducting and assaulting a 12-year-old girl. Prior to his arrest, Meek frequently targeted Trump supporters, QAnon, and conspiracy theories in his articles. It is important to address these sickening crimes and protect our children.
@vDarknessFalls8 - vDarkness Falls
ABC News Reporter, Who ‘Debunked’ Pizzagate, Pleads Guilty to Child Rape An ABC News reporter who bragged about ‘debunking’ evidence of an elite pedophile ring had pleaded guilty to a sickening array of child sex crimes. James Gordon Meek, 53, who served as a national security journalist at ABC has been indictment on child rape charges. The ABC News journalist was actively making plans to rape various young children. Meek allegedly had received and sent brutal photos and videos of child pornography and a troubling message asking another user, “Have you ever raped a toddler girl? It’s amazing.” Meek also allegedly talked about his fantasy of “abducting, drugging, and raping” a user as a 12-year-old girl. Before his arrest, Meek regularly wrote hit pieces against Trump supporters, QAnon and ‘conspiracy theories’ such as Pizzagate. Meek once served as a senior counterterrorism advisor and investigator for the US House Committee on Homeland Security starting in 2011. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/abc-news-reporter-who-debunked-pizzagate-pleads-guilty-to-child-rape/ These People Are Sick. You, The People, Are The Cure.
