LewRockwell Transcripts

Read transcript to 1hr podcast The Real Agenda Behind Government’s Vaccine Obsession By Paul Dragu June 29, 2024

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/06/no_author/888650-2/ 

 Bringing you the truth behind the news. Welcome to the new American. Welcome, everyone. I'm Paul Dragoo. Thanks for tuning in.

We're here to bring you the truth behind the news. If you enjoy this show, please remember to hit that thumbs up button and follow us if you haven't already. It'll help us greatly in getting the word out. We work really hard here. We we got a lot to bring, and, the new American has a terrific record of projecting the lines of warning and predicting about cultural trends and policy trends that have unfortunately come to be true.

So, we like to make the case that you can trust us and you should trust us. So we're gonna look at our first story now. You ever wonder why the US government is so obsessed with what Americans think about vaccines? So there's a recent congressional investigation that revealed that the White House officials worked very hard to suppress a pile of books critical of not just the COVID injection, which they call the vaccine, but vaccines in general. You've heard of the Twitter files.

You've heard of the Facebook files. You may have heard of what happened at YouTube. We know that they all work together. That government burrowed in, and they, imposed their will on these organizations. But perhaps you haven't heard about the Amazon element.

Now Amazon, of course, is the largest book retailer in the world, so this is huge. So the committee on the judiciary and select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, such a long title for a committee, has gotten a hold of tens of thousands of documents that are showing great detail that White House officials bullied Amazon to censor books about vaccines, specifically books that question the efficacy and suppose some outright say that they're they are causing harm. Now an announcement by committee chair congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio a few days ago said that Amazon employed a do not promote approach to books that question, whether vaccines are safe. Now if the there's there's a big report, and, if you look through it or if you listen to what Jim Jordan says, there are several instances that show how White House officials, pressured Amazon into censoring or suppressing certain books. Now in 1 instance, former White House senior advisor for COVID 19 response, Andrew Slavitt, told Amazon higher ups that just attaching simply attaching a CDC information label, which they were doing to the books that they didn't like, they had a little CDC, label there saying, essentially, they're trying to discredit that book.

But, anyway, he was saying it wasn't working. He would go on to Amazon, and he wasn't happy that you could still put in the search engine. You can find the books and whatnot. So he suggested more severe steps, including completely removing the books. Now after some back and forth, Amazon's policy vice president at 1 point had to point out to the White House that books whose subject matter involves questioning efficacy of vaccines didn't violate Amazon's policy.

If you look again and the the emails clearly show that the White House was trying to take them there. It's, like, completely banned these books. Now the company tried to earn goodwill, with the Biden regime, and it played nice. It tried, and it did implement a do not promote policy and others as well, albeit it didn't it seems like it didn't completely take them off. So Amazon did suppress books, certain books, because of pressure from the White House.

That was clear. It was in several emails of communications by Amazon official between Amazon officials and government officials. So we're gonna show a screenshot of some of the books. There's 43 books. As you can see, it's probably hard to read, but, those are the ones that the committee, came up with and saw that the, that the Biden administration wanted to suppress.

Again, a key element here is the fact that this wasn't about COVID 19 necessarily. Most of those books, were about vaccines in general, the efficacy, the childhood schedule, all the stuff that supposedly anti vaxxers have been talking about for decades. They weren't getting a whole lot of attention or or as much attention as as they are now. Now the number 2 book on that list, Vaccine Epidemic, was coauthored and edited by Children's Health Defense CEO Mary Holland, who was actually featured in our, depopulation issue here, and CHD general counsel Kim Mac, Rosenberg, and Louis Kuahabakis. I hope I didn't butcher that name.

Now Holland told the defender that given the censorship industrial complex that has metastasized in recent years, I consider it a badge of honor to have a book in the 2nd slot on this list and to be in such outstanding company. So she certainly has a healthy perception on this. Now apparently, the Biden administration even pushed the center of children's book that said that vaxxed kids and unvaxxed kids can be friends. I I think we had a we had a a graphic there somewhere that may show that or not, but so much for tolerance. So I'm gonna bring in my colleagues here.

I have Gary Benoit. He's editor in chief of the new, American Magazine. I almost forgot the title of our magazine. And we have Steve Bothe. He's the executive senior editor.

So guys, I I I've been listening to an interview with a, a Scottish reporter named Neil Oliver, I believe. And he was talking about how if it weren't co for COVID, he would have never had his eyes open. And he wasn't specifically the at least to the part I don't have guy. He wasn't he wasn't necessarily saying that COVID helped him see that vaccines were causing necessarily harm. What he saw is that the that government that that government tyranny.

What he saw was that the West Western governments weren't necessarily, interested in in protecting us and that they had this that they can be tyrannical completely tyrannical, which flew in the face of what a lot of Brits thought, certainly a lot of Western Europeans. You know, they're like, oh, they weren't afraid of bigger government. We here at the John Birch Society at the New American have always warned that big government is gonna end up doing what it did end up doing, with COVID. But going back to vaccines, because I there there's a connection here. Just like it helped Oliver, I think, realize that small that big government is scary and it's dangerous, it seems like the push on the COVID 19 injection has now begun to open the floodgates of skepticism toward all vaccines.

In 1962, apparently, children received 5 vaccine doses. In 1986, it expanded. Laws were amended to protect vaccine manufacturer. By 2023, the childhood vaccine schedule consists of 73 doses of 16 different vaxxes. Now in the eighties, here's some correlate correlating information here.

In the 19 eighties, when when they were given 11 doses of 3 vaxxes, the chronic illness rate was 12.8%. After the 9th after 1986, we had a and there was a huge gold rush of vaccines at chronic illness in children shot up to 50 4%. Now a lot of the authors and some who of some of those books, doctor Hooker and and Mary Holland, and, of course, 1 of the 1 of the trailblazers has been doctor Andrew Andrew Wakefield. They're saying it's the vaccine, stupid. There is a there is certainly a, a correlation.

What do you think, Gary? Do you think we're do you agree with with this line of thinking, or, are we making much ado about nothing? Well, I I certainly agree with the line of thinking, but now's probably a good time to to state the fact that the New American Magazine and, of course, its parent organization, the John Birch Society, are not medical organizations. Oh, there you go. We're in this fight because we're we're in the fight because of of the freedom fight.

We believe in freedom of choice in medical therapy. Yeah. And that certainly includes freedom of choice regarding whether or not to get a particular vaccine. And that also includes patients being informed Yeah. Regarding the the vaccine and regarding options and whatnot, and a patient and a doctor being able to make a decision.

Yeah. And that all that is being challenged by the COVID regime. Well, Steve, transparency is, is maybe 1 of the issues because maybe you don't agree with that line of thinking. And I know that, from from previous conversations, you know, like me, you you believe that there certainly seems to have been some benefits to to vaccines. I'm a little more skeptical than you are, but I think what's at the center of this is the transparency issue.

The fact that they work so hard to suppress it, that's not the thing that a government a government that's supposed to be, ruled by the governed controlled by the governed does. Right? I mean Well, I mean, to me, it strikes me again. Disclaimer full disclaimer here. I'm not an expert on this, of course, but I would I I would note a couple of things.

Regarding traditional vaccines, there it's a yeah. It may be true that there are issues now that weren't issues in the past, some childhood health issues, but it's also true that children no longer die of diphtheria, scarlet fever, smallpox, and so forth. So, you know, so you kind of look at that and say, well, probably that's a benefit. But that said, okay, a couple of observations, it seems to me, are in order. Number 1, you cannot buy any pharmaceutical product, subscription, nonprescription, even vitamins, even food anymore have detailed labels explaining what's in it.

Mhmm. In many cases, you know, if you if you see particular, you know, commercials and television and so forth for this new product, Ozempic or whatever, you know, the the latest pharmaceutical fad. It's always, you know, side effects may include this, that, and the other thing. They're required to say this. Yes.

You know? Even they're Yeah. Even in the absence, they often say may include. Meaning, you know, it's a very uncertain science because the way that people react to medication depends greatly on their, you know, their their their genetic genetic all this kind of thing. Lots of variables.

They're virus. Tendency is always to on the side of conservatism and spell out all the problems that you might get if you take this drug or that drug or the other drug, even a drug that appears to be, you know, very useful in in treating diabetes or heart disease or these other afflictions that people have. But that same mentality is turned on its head where vaccines are concerned, where there there there's this kind of cult of secrecy and denial Yeah. That there could be any possible harmful side effects to vaccines. And it seems to me that's that's an equally irrational posture.

While it may be that some of the more extreme elements of the so called anti vaxxer movement are prone to assume that vaccines are just bad, period, which is their right if they want to apply that. That's fine. You know, my guess is it's probably a bit exaggerated. Mhmm. But on the other hand, surely, it's no less of an, of an exaggeration for the government to insist, nothing to see here, folks.

Let's move on. Right. Right. Me thinks they protest too much. No.

That's it's extremely suspicious because they are clearly obsessed with how the American public, how the public in general, perceives vaccines. They want they are clearly interested. For whatever reason, they are obsessed with the with us believing that there's nothing harmful about them. And, of course, if you were to ask them, you know, and and and spokesperson and whatnot, the the the reason they always cite is public health. But let's look around, man.

Let's let's let's look around in the last couple of years. Let's look around over the last couple of decades. And I I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the government's not really interested in our well-being. I mean, let's let's consider, for instance, the the criminally open border. They know there's terrorists coming in.

There's criminals coming in. There's drugs. They're literally killing tens of 1, 000, 100 of 1, 000 of people, and they have not been as obsessed with closing that border as they are about getting us to shut up and stop thinking. And that was also true during the COVID pandemic. Yes.

The the southern border remained mysteriously open while you couldn't catch a plane to Europe or anywhere else in New York. So so that doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that they're trying to legitimize mental illness, especially in the in the realm of trans sexuality. You know, before it was homosexuality, which on the DSM was considered a mental illness until it got politicized. Transsexuality is clearly the result of mental illness.

I have spoken to expert psychiatrists of 40 to 50 years, including doctor Miriam Grossman, and she has she, along with so many others, said it is. It is mental illness. There is a there is a direct correlation between people who are confused about their sex and people who have perhaps autism, depression, ADHD, and several others. There's there's no denying it. Again, also, if our well-being was their goal, then they would have pushed through a fake climate crisis that essentially, decreases our our energy sources and increases our pry our energy prices, our food, and everything, because it's not well for a society.

Inflation doesn't do us any favors. And 1 last example I would make is that, why aren't they emphasizing the harm of fast food? Or why aren't they emphasizing exercise and whatnot? You go to the CDC and you listen to Fauci or whatever, especially during COVID. The answer was things like masks and, social distancing and isolation, all things that are kind of the first of all, masks didn't do any good.

At best, they were neutral, but isolation is really harmful to the psyche. They never said, hey. By the way, if you live in an area as I did in rural Montana where you can get outside, where you can get exercise, where you can enjoy the clean outdoors, do that. You know, state maybe, you know, don't have too much interaction, but make sure to get together with your families to to keep you, to keep you sane. They never did any of that because they do not care about our well-being.

I think what they care about, and I think we documented it pretty well. We have documented it. This comes down. When you narrow it down, I think vaccines are part of the population agenda. Absolutely.

And, of course, that's the point that is made in this special report from the New America Magazine, the population by design. But I would say, in general, when you look at COVID 19 and how we responded to COVID 19, that had nothing to do with public health. It did not help public health to destroy the American economy. Right. And, also, we imagine this very smart COVID 19 virus, did we not, where we had to worry about it in terms of a my and pop grocery store Or a church.

Or or a church. Well, you know, we can't have that. We have to close down the churches, but we kept open the big box stores. Or how about planned parenthood? Where they go to the local That was, but it was okay to It was an amazing part of a 1000 person riot.

To riot. And, of course, we had to wait for these vaccines to come out, that were so, destructive, we found out later, where they did much more harm than good. Yeah. And in order to make the vaccines the solution, we had to block other remedies Yeah. Such as ivermectin, for example for example, or hydroxychloroquine.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And and there's a lot of there there's studies out there regarding the COVID 19 injection. There's already studies.

They've been, showing that they're they're they're probably contributing to infertility. Now the the crazy anti vaxxers have said for decades that this was actually contributing to infertility. The other vaccines, it wasn't necessarily the COVID injection 1. Do you have any thoughts on this? Well, I I don't know how apropos this is, but I'm, you know, I'm thinking back to to Firefly.

You remember Firefly? The series? The series. It was just considered like a cult class. Well, right.

And then there's a follow-up movie called Serenity that came up, you know, out a few years after the series was untimely, canceled by Fox News. And the series is set in in in a distant star system. Many centuries in the future, a place that's been colonized by human beings escaping from an overpopulated earth by in in generational starships. So, anyway, so in this in this universe, there's this tyrannical government that has won, in effect, a civil war, a an interplanetary civil war, and is taking control of this entire solar system. And it focuses on this this group of rogue, you know, Han Solo type people that are smugglers and and and this kind of thing, for hire.

And they, they, you know, they they they come up, you know, against the go up against the government, and they ultimately discover in the movie movie, Serenity, that the government has secretly experimented with the vaccine that they call the pax vaccine, which is Latin for the word peace, and it's designed to completely neutralize people's violent instincts. And so they test it out on an entire planet of people only to have the people completely lose interest in living, breathing, eating, procreating, and they since we just lie down and die. Oh, wow. And I won't go into more details than that. But it's interesting because that that movie came out, you know, 20 years ago Yeah.

Or thereabouts and perhaps accurately pointed to the fact that 1 of the areas in which the modern day, you know, technocratic autocracies that we either have or would that that that aspire to become such in in places like the United States is is medical experimentation. Right? And in particular, this notion of using vaccines, involuntary vaccination programs to modify human behavior, it may be about depopulation, but it may also be ultimately about about behavior modification of various this is not an I mean, if if Joss Whedon can think it up for some obscure science fiction series, it's clearly I mean, you know, this this is an idea that's been floating around in the halls of the CIA. And, you know Behavior modification is certainly something they've been interested. Right.

And if you can't cull the herd, why you can pacify the herd? So they're all a a lot of things that you could do. Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Now I think the, the silver lining in this is it turns out that COVID 19 continues to be the gift that keeps on giving in the sense that I think now people are thinking. They're looking at vaccines, all vaccines, with a very suspicious eye, and I think rightfully so. Now this is hits especially home to me because 1 of the ways that, I was kinda red pill was by a naturopathic doctor. And the first report I ever did on him was actually 1 that he did on vaccines. And I have the story here.

I brought out a prop. This is in my office. This is doctor Jerry Taylor from Montana. And here when I was, an unred pilled, young young cub journalist there, and I my headline was anti vaccine doctor speaks out in Havre. And so this doctor, he told me he he, he espoused the idea that vaccines were causing autism, which is actually very, very popular amongst those circles.

He also introduced me to doctor Andrew Wakefield. And I looked at doctor Andrew Wakefield. And if you go to Wikipedia, it'll tell you he's this nut job who went crazy or whatever. But then you look if you if you look at it logically, doctor Andrew Wakefield was a very accomplished surgeon. He was a lecturer.

He was an honor, he was he was an honorary member of, like, 1 of the most prestigious medical schools in Britain, and then the only thing he ever did wrong is he took the wrong position on vaccines. And after studies, he started to say, you know what? I think there's something here. So when that happens, I really question, I really question whether someone is a a nutcase conspiracy theorist because they were fine until they took that position. What does that tell us?

Well, I mean, it's also we've experienced this as a program, of course, is that we we've got kicked off of YouTube primarily, though not exclusively, for our espousal of so called anti vaxxer sentiments. In in shows like this, we wouldn't be able to air this on YouTube. No. It would get kicked off of YouTube. Yeah.

Right. Absolutely. So so so so it makes you wonder. Okay. Let's see.

We conquered COVID 19, supposedly. It's not a thing anymore. The remnants of that particular pathogen are out there circ circulating about as a relatively mild cold for most people. It's still out there. Right?

But we think thing though in terms of the response to COVID. Well, certainly. With regard to the vaccines because of the excess deaths that, are continuing and probably will continue for a number of years. My my point is my point is why are we still censoring all of this stuff? And unless there's some sort of a a, you know, a hidden reason Yeah.

A hidden you know? I mean, supposedly, censorship, for example, in wartime is applied during wartime. But after the war is over, it's so, you know, you can talk about things that you maybe couldn't talk about during the war. Right? Well, the same thing here.

Supposedly, we defeated COVID. At least that's what president Biden assures us and vouching all the rest of them because of this. And yet, all of these censorship protocols remain in place. Yes. Yes.

All begging again the question, why are they so obsessed with that? Thank you, gentlemen. Alright. We're gonna come back, and we're gonna look at Julian Assange's deal that he cut with the US government. This is huge news.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit declaration of independence proclaims God given rights, and we intend to protect them. Working with people like you for over 50 years, preserving freedom and building a better tomorrow, safeguarding the constitution by limiting government power. We are restoring liberties, educating voters, and leading the freedom movement. Join with us. United, we will defend our rights.

We are all Americans. We are the John Birch Society. Folks, big tech is suppressing free speech everywhere. We just laid out an example in the previous segment of that, and it's clear that their censorship campaign is going to probably get much worse. Without free speech, we don't have a free society.

That's why you need to dump big tech bosses and join the Truth Social movement now. Now at Truth Social, you can get all your news and opinions set up or join groups based on your hobbies or interests. You can make yourself heard on any issue without being squelched by big tech sensors. Join the network that is the leading platform for direct unfiltered access to Donald Trump's social media posts. If you want instant access to all of Trump's announcements, plans, and reactions to the biggest issues of the day, Truth Social is a social media platform for you.

So break free at a big tech. Suppression, strike a blow against cancel culture, and reclaim your rights on America's premier free speech social platform. Join Truth Social today. Alright, guys. So huge news on Julian Assange.

He's been in exile, if I if I remember correctly. I'm a let you guys take over shortly here. But my understanding is he's been in exile. There's always been this the lingering danger that the the government is, the US government is gonna finally get their hands on him, throw him in jail in some in some basement, and we'll never hear from him again. But we got some, Gary, we got some news yesterday that I think bodes well for Julian Assange.

Well, I think it does. We don't know the particulars, but, our understanding and and, actually, Steve has been researching this. Oh. But our understanding is that that an agreement has been reached where he's pleading guilty, but, would be able to go back to, his home in Australia. Yeah.

What do what do we what what do we got here, Steve? Well, as of right now, I believe he's in the air somewhere between Bangkok and the Northern Marianas, which is the closest US jurisdiction to Australia. He apparently did not want to go to the continental United States, understandably, to finalize the plea deal. So they they negotiated he would do it instead in the Northern Marianas Islands. Yeah.

He's going to appear before a judge. He's gonna be sentenced to he's gonna plead guilty in return for which he'll be sentenced to 62 months, which is time served. In effect, he's been in in the Hu'sgow in in Britain for a while. And then he will be repatriated to Australia after 12 long years of this this legal battle. Yeah.

Reports say that he's expected to plead guilty to 1 count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US so there he is. That's just a little bit of footage there signing the deal, getting getting on the plane, and and whatnot. Now for those who may not remember, Steve, some of the details regarding surrounding Assange, can you kind of bring us up to speed? Okay. So once upon a time, Julian Assange was this this dashing enigmatic young figure, sort of the international man of mystery as it were.

He he cut his spurs as a professional hacker in Australia, had kind of a troubled youth, raised in Yeah. You know, unstable family situation, this kind of thing, but had an aptitude for computer hacking Yeah. Ended up getting in trouble with the law. Always the troublemakers. Well, yes.

He has smart kids who grow up in bad homes. Right. So he ended up getting in trouble with the law. He's he did some time in in prison. So he has I mean, if if you wonder why he seems to have this almost Trumpian resiliency in terms of fighting the legal system for years, and it's because he's he is inured to it.

I mean, he he he spent time in prison. He was at loggerheads with the Australian authorities back in the day when he when he got out. Yeah. Then he decided to to divert his talents to something that was a little bit more, you know, perhaps a little bit more interesting. He was intrigued by the story of Daniel Ellsworth and the Pentagon Papers and all of that from the 19 seventies.

And so he, with a bunch of a bunch of similarly gifted associates around the world, decided to create this website consecrated to airing the world's secrets of governments, but also corporations and banks and things of this nature. How dare you? He's, you know, he's mostly known today for leaking with the help of a couple of Americans, you know, with with the the the individual now known as Chelsea Manning. Mhmm. Okay?

The transsexual and so forth, leaked leaked a bunch of damning details about what what went on in not just in Iraq. We've all seen the film of the the US Apache helicopter, killing a bunch of journalists and so forth and so on, and, the pilot's making snide comments about it. But he also leaked a bunch of embarrassing stuff about the occupation in Afghanistan and a number of other things, both of which, I think were probably but before that ever happened, he was leaking things about Russia. He was leaking things about communist China. He was leaking things about Kenya and Somalia and Peru and other places like this all around the world, and no 1 raised a peep about that.

That was okay because we know they're corrupt, and therefore, they've got it coming. But when he turned his guns, rhetorically speaking, on the United States and on so certain other respectable, in air quotes, Western regimes, the UK, and so forth, then suddenly he became public enemy number 1. And he's he's this very complex figure because, initially, the Democrats kind of liked him because he helped to discredit George W. Bush's war on terrorism. Okay?

And the Republicans were all calling for his head. Many of them mostly, but not exclusively what we call rhino and neocon types. Now the the lone Republican who who supported him all the way through as Ron Paul, who in fact gave a speech about him in 2012 on the floor of the house, in effect, defending what he was doing. But once he began exposing US military secrets, airing the dirty laundry of the of the CIA and this kind of thing That's when the water got really perhaps less politically, you know, publishing diplomatic cables and things like this that probably should remain privileged. Otherwise, diplomats can't really communicate.

Then, suddenly, the US began looking for ways to wage lawfare against him, a term that didn't even exist, you know, 10, 12 years ago. Yeah. And so, eventually, they decided, well, we're going to convict him of espionage. Left unstated was the fact that this man is not a US citizen. He's an Australian citizen.

He's not he doesn't operate in US soil. Okay? He's basically receiving information from some US citizens who arguably did commit some form of treason or or other, you know, lesser crimes and revealing his secrets. Well, Manning went to prison, as as we know, for a while and and this kind of thing. And, he also was in contact with with the much maligned Edward Snowden Mhmm.

Who ultimately helped him, apparently, facilitate his flight through Hong Kong and ultimately to Russia. Yeah. So, but now but but the the key thing, the the where where the worm really turned was when he went after Hillary Clinton and exposed well, he he That was showing not going on. Well, there was the release of all these secret DNC documents that showed that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who at the time was the head of the DNC Yeah. Was working cheek and jowl with Hillary Clinton.

She her her whole purpose was to anoint Hillary Clinton. Yeah. They railroaded Bernie. They railroaded Bernie, and all of this was aired on WikiLeaks. So suddenly, he became an an enemy of the the insider faction of the Democrat party, you know, the Clintons and all and the Bidens and all these people united in hatred against him.

Does that tell you that's where the real power is? Right. So the so the first thing that happened, of course, was the government of Sweden suddenly cut comes out and and has him he was he was in the UK at the time and issues a warrant for his arrest on claims that have subsequently proven very, very doubtful at best of of sexual molestation of a young woman. Now it's no secret that Assange is kind of a you know? I mean, he's he's not a saint in terms of his personal conduct.

That's, you know, that's Yeah. Partly the way he was raised. But, anyway, not making excuses for him, but that's that's a well known fact. He's also known to have an abrasive personality and not to suffer fools gladly and maybe creating a lot of ex associates have said he had a toxic work work, environment, all those. None of these, however Have anything.

Constitute criminal behavior. Right. Okay. So Assange He's not a criminal. He'll be a jerk.

Assange said right away, oh, I know what this is. They're trying to get me out of here to take me back to Sweden, and then from there, Sweden's gonna send me to the United States. And the United States, oh, no. No. No.

No. No. We're this isn't we don't have anything to do with this. Nevertheless, Assange, very astutely, I think, in effect skipped eluded the British authorities, sought refuge or asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and there he remained for a number of years until they finally kicked him out. Apparently, he wasn't a very good guest, and the the claims were that he was not very hygienic also.

So, So, eventually, the Ecuador what these the Ecuadorians came out. Ecuador, in those days, had a reliably leftist anti US, government, but that has has changed quite a bit. So so, you know, you should never repose too much trust in this kind of thing. Eventually, the Ecuadorians did allow him to be apprehended by British authorities, and lo and behold, no sooner was he safely immured in prison in England that the US Department of Justice unveiled indictments Right. And said, oh, we want him in the United States Right.

And began working. So Assange was right. They were after him. So they that's so, basically, the UK was kinda like the cage they were trying to Absolutely. Right.

And the and plan was to bring him back here and and disappear him forever or perhaps, Epstein him or something that I mean, you know, I think he's he may come across as paranoid, but I I think he's he's he's he's justified. Yeah. I would say so. Well, what happened was they were all set to extradite him, and then they he he he filed some sort of last minute appeal a couple months ago. And then that was then a stay in the extradition was issued, and new evidence was brought to light.

And it suddenly became apparent that this thing was going to drag on. And even if the extradition ultimately went through, it might be bad press for the Democrat since a large part of their radical left base does regard Assange as something of of a hero or perhaps an antihero. To have Assange show up at an American airport in shackles and be perp walked into into some, you know, d DC courthouse to be arraigned, this might not be good optics for the already floundering Biden campaign. Now I'm I'm being speculative here, but it does seem to me that what is happening is purely political as so much of all of this war lawfare is. And it's attempt to say, okay.

We're going after Trump. We're gonna focus our energies on him, and the devil take the hindmost. Assange, we'll cut him loose. It's really not worth it anymore because we we're already on very, very thin ice as far as our, you know, radical left, you know, the AOC faction of the Democratic Party. The law firm department is spread too thin on the mention independence.

I mean, Assange is very, very popular among independents. Wait till he starts, you know, making his appearances on the Tucker Carlson Yeah. You know, the all the other, you you know, the Glenn he's good friends with Glenn Greenwald who smartly stays in Brazil. You know? Well, Glenn and he they're kinda the same type because Glenn Greenwald does a lot of reporting Absolutely.

Absolutely. On the corruption of the government. Greenwald knows that, you know, there there might come a time when he might be dubbed an enemy of the regime here and something. So he kinda stays in Brazil and keeps his nose clean or tries to. But you know?

So this is a I mean, again, we don't, as an organization, necessarily regard this man as an unalloyed hero. We're probably not gonna write him up in our heroes of the 21st century special list. Look at him as a villain leader, though. 80 years from now. Yeah.

Speak for tell. Yeah. And I would like to interject 1 say thing regarding, Assange because I think this is really important to keep in mind. And that is governments lie and the US government lies. And US government covers up.

And there are many examples of that. And, a lot of what Ashans exposed were things that the American people needed to know. Right. But things that were covered up by their own government. And Steve, you referred to that in what you were saying a little bit earlier because you referred to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We were giving money to, to Pakistan that Pakistan was then transferring to terrorists in Afghanistan to kill American soldiers. Yeah. We should know that. Something the American people needed to know, and we would not have known that if it weren't for Assans. Well, I think that the whole this whole it's called a culture of secrecy, but it's really a cult of secrecy that has grown up around what III am you know, Eisenhower called the military industrial complex.

But the the the the structure of empire, which we have assumed along with the mantle of sole, you know, enforcer of world peace and stability post World War 2. Well, that's the facade. With that comes this notion that you have to have state secrets on not not just little things, you know, like like what what people you know, government officials say in private meetings 1 to another that might be embarrassing if they're released publicly. Not privileged communications like that, but a pervasive network of secrecy. I mean, we alluded to 1 aspect of this in the previous, segment.

Right? We talked about the possibility what we the reality of medical experimentation that's been carried out for decades. We talked about vaccines. Of course, we all know what you know, the CIA did this kind of thing. Mhmm.

And and the justification is always, well, you know you know, state has its reasons, you know, reasons of state. But this is the this is not the logic of the American founders. It's the logic of old world imperialism. Obviously, empires require secrecy. Empires require this kind of thing because empires do bad things.

Empires wage wars in countries Yeah. That pose no threat to them. Wars of occupation, wars of pacification, wars of democratization as we sometimes style it, as we did in Iraq. You know, the entire Iraq war from start to finish was not just a national embarrassment. It was a crime.

Okay? And in some ways, 1 would argue such a democracy now. Some way you know, and to some extent, you know, people just saying, well, you know, I mean, the United States invaded Iraq and did what it did there, and now Russia is doing the same thing in Ukraine. What's the difference? Real good question.

You know? But do we really want to behave the same way as the Russia's and the China's, not to mention the Napoleons and the Hitlers and so forth of the past. And and we're moving in that direction. I mean, prior to World War 2, there was this notion in the United States that, for example, this very, very strong idea that we shouldn't have any permanent espionage agencies at all because as it was said, gentlemen don't read 1 another's mail. Now that all went out the window after World War 2 and not by coincidence.

Now we read each other's mail. We spy on our own citizens. We do all of these things, and it's all justified in the name of maintaining this vast imperium. But those are not those are not attributes of a free society. Secondly, if you were to ask the American people, whether from the fifties on up or ever, hey.

We want to engage in in turning America into this empire. We want to be the police of the world. We want to get involved in all this and whatnot. Let's take a referendum so we could see if if we have your blessing as the American people, as the ones who pay for everything or not. Most people will be like, no.

We don't care. We don't want you to do that. We have no intention of doing that. We want a strong military here so we can protect it if others come or whatever. We wanna live our lives.

We wanna leave everyone else alone. And I bet you if you were gonna ask the Russian people that, they'd probably say the same thing. We wanna live a good life. We don't care about all that other stuff. Knock it off.

But there's always these lunatics who get in a power, they use their power, and then they turn this country and other countries into things that the people never want. There's always a small number of people. And that was the idea, wasn't it, Gary? Sure. The founders is like, we need to have control of these people because we've seen what's happened over and over and over in history, and now it's happening again.

In this in this country, it's now called a deep state. That deep state is an invisible, unelected government behind the visible elected government of the United States, and it is working against the interests of the American people. It is working in secrecy. It does not want to have the American people know what it's doing. It's corrupt.

It's criminal. And I would go so far as say it is a illegitimate But you guys discuss that. Critical point. They're doing it in our own best interest. Well, that's what they claim.

Yes. But but but but surely, they're right. I mean, these guys all have Harvard degrees. They must know what they're talking about. Alright.

We gotta take a break, guys. So we're gonna look at 1 of the few members of Congress who who has what it takes to stand up and, try to do the right thing, and that is Ana Paulina Luna. We'll be right back. Alright, parents. Listen up.

We've all seen the countless examples of how radical radical leftists have been destroying American schools. It's no longer just about the terrible math and reading levels. Now radical left teachers birthed from liberal universities are forcing gender indoctrination in in kindergarten. They're teaching lessons on white guilt. Freedom Project Academy has perfected live on online learning over the course of a decade.

I get a ton of great feedback about this program. A ton. They're built on Judeo Christian values, a classical curriculum. What does that mean? It means they're taught your children are taught taught the way that the founding generations of the country.

My own son, Noah, did Freedom Project Academy for several years when he was younger. The more we tell our friends about these things, the more people will get on board. And I and I believe that we can be the catalyst to some real change. We must save the West. Our way of life and our culture is under attack.

And because of patriots like you and your project, I have optimism for the future. As we mentioned, Anna Paulina Luna seems to be 1 of the few members of congress who, she has consistently exhibited behavior that says that, you know, she's actually interested in the well-being of of this republic. Steve, she, has made AAA recent move regarding our corrupt AG, United States attorney general, that being Merrick Garland. Tell us more about that. Well, first of all, I just wanna say again that Merrick Garland looks so much like Boris Karloff.

No. But Jack Smith looks so much like Christopher Lee. How is it that we have all of these people right now who plays Count Classic? Who plays Count Dooku? Who plays Count Dooku and Saruman and all the rest of the nation, innumerable villains before.

We have so many people in in the Biden administration who actually look like Like villains. Like classic Hollywood villain act. Yeah. It's it's amazing. So anyway say the real life, the the only so are go beyond what is in fiction?

Well, I would say I would that's that's certainly implied. Anyway, so so so so what's happened is that a couple weeks ago, less than 2 weeks ago, there was a vote held in the house, to hold and it and it passed, okay, to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of congress for his refusal to release the video And tapes. Audio The audio. Tapes that the the transcription of which was released per per a congressional subpoena, but which had obviously been modified, redacted, and otherwise had cosmetic applied to make Biden look perhaps less doddering than he in fact is. Senile?

Yes. So the at least this is the suspicion, and the suspicions were heightened when in response to a second subpoena saying, well, okay. It's not enough for this so called transcript. We want the actual tapes. We want the audio.

The immediate response was, no. You can't have them. You don't need them. You just trust us. Yeah.

And Merrick Garland went faced down the house under withering and and and said, I don't care. I'm not afraid of you. I'm not going to to succumb to bullying and so forth and so on, which is tantamount to saying, I don't recognize your coequal authority with mine. Clearly, you ought to be subordinate in matters such as these to the whims of the executive branch. It was just as much as to say, he does not believe in coequal separation of powers.

No. No. But rather, he believes in subordinate separation of powers. He's got the guns. He's got the muscle.

He's not gonna That's right. And so this this is a problem, of course, that it's not a new problem. It turns out there is a second species of contempt. This is called inherent contempt. Now the criminal contempt passed.

In fact, Garland is the 3rd recent attorney general to be cited by Congress for criminal contempt. In American history? No. No. In recent history.

History. In recent history. You know, Eric Holder, for example, in the Obama administration back in, what, 2015 ish. Okay? And he did precisely what garden Garland is.

Name, he thumbed his nose at Congress and said, I'm not going to give you the stuff. This is all symbolic. So it's actually we've reached the point where a citation of criminal contempt by Congress is meaningless. Unless Unless you're Steve Bannon or Peter Amaro. Or Peter Amaro.

Other people who don't who are not actually in office, who don't wield actual clout backed up by men with guns Yes. Which obviously Merrick Garland knows. Throw you in jail. In that case right. In that case, they'll throw you in jail.

So Merrick Garland knows the men with guns are in his side as Eric Holder before him did, and so he doesn't care. So he's and and this is, you know, the I mean, obviously, we had, you know, Christopher Wray doing something similar and was also cited for contempt because, you know, he refused to surrender FBI, you know, evidence We're under extreme duress. And then he finally said, well, you know, you could look at it, but only in the SCIF under circums, you know, supervision. We're not gonna give you unredacted versions and so forth and so on. Congress has reached the point where they're sick of this.

And by Congress, I mean, the GOP is tired of this because the the Democrats some members of it. Well yeah. And and so now what they're saying is, well, we have to if we're going to cite them for contempt, there has to be teeth behind it. So inherent contempt, which is what Luna wants to vote on this week, is something very different. Let's watch a quick video.

I think we have a a quick video of her explaining the difference and what she intends to do. Yeah. So in a nutshell, for those that might not be tracking, there's actually 2 types of contempt of congress. There's criminal contempt, which is referred to the Department of Justice, which is what we just voted on, and then there's inherent contempt. And, obviously, I do not have faith in the Department of Justice.

I don't think the American people do either. Look at the 2 tiered justice system that we're seeing play out in this country. And so what I've done is I've actually filed a privilege motion, meaning I can bring this to the floor and call it up myself. It doesn't have to go through committee or through leadership. And, ultimately, there's something called inherent contempt.

It hasn't been done since early 1900, but that would basically give, Congress the, authority to go and get Garland and compel him to force what we are asking, which is for those recordings. You know, Garland is not above the law. The Department of Justice is not above the law. And unless we really turn this around, we're gonna lose this country. And so I'm trying to bring up that vote.

I will be serving, my colleagues with a letter here on Monday. And if the Department of Justice doesn't do their job, we'll do it for them. We were so close to having that man as a Supreme Court justice. Yes. We thought that was Well, actually, 1 could argue that he would have less power than he currently enjoys if he were in panel of the Supreme Court.

That's why. Yeah. And and, you know, the way the Supreme Court decisions are go be going late, I'm not sure that we really need that extra so called conservative appointed by Trump because, you know, we're not getting a lot of but that's another story, and I'm we'll probably have a lot more to say about the supremes in coming weeks. Yes. As far as this issue is concerned, 1 of the problems with a strict separation of powers is that if you, per Montesquieu's and the founder's recommendation, strictly segregate the executive from the legislative functions of the state.

Sounds like a good idea except for this 1 problem, and that is that the executive, by definition, is the branch that has the force. They have the people with guns because it's their duty to carry out the law, to see if the laws are in fact enforced. Not that they actually do it, particularly under Biden, but to the to the extent that they selectively decide to do so, they do have a monopoly on force, more or less. Now in addition to but so in our system, there's a little bit of hybridization. So, for example, the executive branch does have a say in the legislative function.

It's not the primary function, but the president can veto laws. He's also required to sign laws. So he does participate Yeah. To some degree in the legislative process. On the other side of the coin, 1 might ask, okay.

Well, if that be the case, does congress have any executive powers at his disposal? And they do. But it has and they haven't been used for a very long time. There's an individual called the sergeant at arms. Okay.

We talked about him before. We talked about him before. Yeah. And and in the 19 which Luna alluded to in this clip, back in 19 thirties, there was a controversy with a particular official who was behaving in the same way as Merrick Garland. He was held in inherent contempt, and the sergeant at arms marched over and arrested the guy.

And they have some sort of little little little place where they, you know, they can find some little cell that is essentially never used. So congress can actually arrest people, detain them, sentence them, that they do have limited executive and even judicial powers at their disposal to discharge functions against extremely, you know, intransigent officials like Garland. The question is whether sufficient numbers of Ana Paulina Luna's GOP colleagues have the same degree of backbone that Xi does and will be willing to support her in a vote sometime this week to hold Garland and Heron content because they know that if they vote for it, they're going to have to arrest the guy. Yeah. And this is something that hasn't been done in a in a long time.

It probably should be done more often. I'm not gonna hold my breath on that. Neither am I gonna need track record. I I like police. But kudos to her for trying.

Yes. Yes. She's, you know, she's a fighter. She literally is a fighter. She's a she's a military vet and whatnot, and she's always she's been pretty solid.

So we're gonna take a quick break, and we're gonna look at an another example that America may be a country that is collectively mentally ill. Character, vigilance, integrity. Will you stand Join us Join us for our leadership conference, September 20th 21st in beautiful Laguna Hills, California. We'll hear from the courageous, the defenders, and the leaders who stand in the gap to defend our American liberty. Get your tickets at jbs.org today.

Remember when the only uncertainty in news was the weather forecast? Now our world is clouded by half truths, misdirection, and gaslighting. The deluge of lies from leftist activists posing as journalists is unrelenting. At the New American, we hold fast to the timeless truths of our founders. Sanctuary in the storm.

Visit the new american.com today and get 25% off your subscription. We're gonna take a look at the Biden administration's or the regime's latest, is it communications director? You have more on this. Sure. I I can take it from here.

And you're referring to Tyler Cherry? Yeah. And, yes. There he is. I was just saying did not make this up.

I I would say he's not an example of the all American man, at least by the standards of a generation or 2 ago. Now maybe people would differ today, but, he's in the the Biden administration. Yeah. And, he was promoted to a source of communications director. Exactly.

Specializing in the area of environmental issues and and climate issues. Yeah. He takes the lead on on those issues. But, his, his appointment from the interior department into this new position for the White House has created a degree of controversy, which is not surprising when you take a look at some of his tweets. Oh.

Now these tweets, have, since been deleted by him. But, fortunately, some of them have been captured. And there are some examples right there. And I just like to go through a couple of them. For instance, in 1 tweet, he said, police equals slave patrols.

In another, he said, that it is apt time to recall that the modern day police system is a direct evolution of slave patrols and lynch mobs. He He obviously doesn't think very much of police, does he? And, he also said, as well as for queer people of color and the intersectional role that race and sexuality play in police brutality, health care, etcetera. He also caused to abolish ICE and, not shown here, but in another example reported by Fox News. The previous examples, were reported by another news news source, the New York Post.

But an example provided by Fox News, he said, it says that Cherry said he was, quote, praying even harder for an end to a capitalistic police state motivated by explicit and implicit ratio biases, close quote. So so he tells you something about his, his background. Now now when everything hit the fan, so to speak Mhmm. Regarding these positions, he he deleted these past tweets. Yeah.

And he put out a new 1 on x. Twitter, of course, is now x. And, there's the, the new 1 that he put up, just several days ago. He says that past social media polls from when I was younger do not reflect my current views, period. I support this administration's agenda and will continue my communications work focused on our climate and environmental policies.

Yeah. Close quote. But, of course, that begs the question, how different are those views he had previously expressed to the views of the Biden administration? They're certainly not night and day, are they? But, but, anyway, those, those tweets, those old tweets went down a memory hole.

I also wanna point out that, that this guy is not the the only person, in the Biden administration who comes from charitably what we might call an alternative lifestyle. Well, from the insane asylum, it looks like. Okay. But They'd otherwise be there. Let's take a look at another example, and that's Sam Brinton.

Yeah. There he is. He is gender fluid. He has since left the Biden administration, by the way, because because of shoplifting. He's not gender fluid.

He's mentally ill. Well, okay. Well, he he, he claims to be gender fluid. Claims to be gender fluid. And when he was in the by Biden administration, he was deputy assistant secretary of spent fuel Yeah.

And waste this disposition in the office of nuclear energy for the department of of energy. So, that's, that's him. And another example is Rachel Doctor Levine, of course. Doctor Levine. Yeah.

There he is. Actually is a guy, but, identifies as a woman. So, and the the headline there is very interesting. I'm being out in government and, the fall outrage over trans day of visibility. Now what is a trans day of visibility?

And, there's 1 more thing we'd like to show, and that's the the proclamation, A pro proclamation on transgender day of visibility, 2024. This was, inter this was something that was signed off on by by Joe Biden. Well, that that that broke out during Easter because they it No. That's right. They were trying to it broke out during Easter, and he said Biden said, I am proud to have appointed transgender leaders to my administration and have ended the ban on transgender Americans serving openly in our military.

And he went on to say, I am proud they have signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law and showing that every American can marry the person they love. So, obviously, the administration is pushing the agenda to get rid of traditional morality Mhmm. And to bring in this new, so called, new morality. And, and and I just wanna add 1 more thing. It immorality?

IIII would. Yes. And I just like to point out 1 other thing, and this is going back to the 19 seventies, something that Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, said in an essay he wrote called John Birch Resolutions. Here's what Robert Wells said, many decades ago. But they, they referring to what today we call the deep state or the insiders or the conspirators for global control, but they are well aware that the elimination of all morality would remove 1 great obstacle to their enslavement of the human race, and they have chosen to carry out this destructive program by psychological procedures.

We are being induced to call evil good and good evil while we pat ourselves on the back over our sophistication Yeah. Exactly as did those who were so modern in the days of Isaiah. So isn't that what we see happening today is manifested by the the Biden administration and some of the people they're putting into the administration? Isn't that what we see happening today with the, the death ethic via abortion? Isn't that what we see happening today with this whole transgender, agenda, you know, which is an actual assault on humanity itself to try to say that men can be woman and woman can be can be men?

Well, so it's certainly that that's what's hap I find it ironic that, for instance, you have someone like Tyler Cherry or Britton or whatever his name was, who are clearly, very, mentally ill, who are clearly degenerate in their lifestyle and whatnot. And then at the same time, they're anti police. So there's there seems to be, you have those elements that are going to bring about chaos, and and we're seeing that. And, also, they're furthermore they're attached from reality because all the places in in which they, they actually bought into this anti police all this anti police mumbo jumbo, this this sentiment, whether you talk about Chicago, New York City, and and these, these cities, they a lot of them embrace this, and and what happened is those communities were hurt most. So they're again, they're detached from reality.

That's part of being, mentally ill or as you they used to call them crazy. But I think this is also a reflection. I think this is God kind of making it clear. It's like, hey, America. You have a problem.

You are collectively mentally ill in a sense. And I would say we're more on the schizophrenic side because you have a large element of Americans, and I think it's actually larger than the mentally ill, who are sane, who are rational. I think the only problem that has been with those Americans, the normal ones, is you you've shut up. You sat there on your butts while while they were doing this. In the nineties, we we had a a few issues in the new American.

What what was it? Like, a society or a perversion or some I forget the exact headline. Politics of perversion. Politics of perversion. Mhmm.

And we were saying, look. This homosexual revolution, this this movement, it's not gonna stop here. But like many Americans, they're like, okay. Okay. Whatever.

You wanna wanna be you wanna do what you wanna do behind your bedroom or whatever Sure. It's fine. Well, that was the claim, but that obviously was not the agenda. Was not. And it kept evolving, and it has continued devolving.

And meanwhile, good Americans or decent people because whatever. I'm I'm evangelical, and I happen to think that there's no 1 good like God says. But anyway But we we all have a fallen nature. Absolutely. But decent people sat by, and you were naive enough to think that it's gonna stop.

That they're that, you know, they're just gonna do their thing. They're not gonna push it on your kids. They're not they're just gonna they just want you to to, I guess, to to stop prosecuting them or whatever, which is still not happening. And now people are realizing that's not the case. Now people are pushing back.

And so it's encouraging in that, but we are a society that needs to rehabilitate. We need to stop this. The people who are against this, the people who are sane and rational, you need to speak up. Well, you know, Peter, can I just make a quick comment? And that is that, you know, there was a time when people who studied Roman history would marvel at the perversions of Nero and Caracalla and Caligula and people of this nature.

This is part of the cult of empire too, this extreme point. Perversion, this idea that we, the elite, are above all laws of morality, and it very much was a feature of Rome in its decadent That's true. Generations. Right? It was remarked upon.

Greeks too. Yeah. If you read if you once upon a time, Suetonius and, people like this, you know, who chronicled the fall of Rome was just horrified people. But today, you look at it and say, you know, this guy strikes me frankly as a moderate compared to a lot of the people in the Biden administration, the Democratic party at large. Because he didn't shave his head and put lipstick.

He just likes to wear dresses. Yeah. He's not as extreme as I know there's normalized just as it was in ancient Rome. Well, we should not extreme as others. Become normalized just as it was in ancient Rome.

Well, we should not let it, and people should not accept this. We that's how we get back. We have to get better. We have to get collectively, mentally stable and healthy. Well, we have to be informed, and we have to restore our morality.

Thanks, gentlemen. And thank you everyone for tuning in. Join us again tomorrow at 11 AM CST.