Judging Freedom - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: Is the US Govt a Ponzi Scheme?

Episode Date: February 6, 2024

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: Is the US Govt a Ponzi Scheme?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. so so Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, February 6, 2024. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski joins us in a moment on some very interesting topics, the latest in Ukraine, the latest on the slaughter in Gaza. And this is the United States government, a Ponzi scheme. But first this. Justice Balteno here. I love being a spokesperson for causes that I believe in. And one of them is the soundness of money. We don't have that anymore.

The markets are casinos. The Fed is printing cash like it's going out of style. What is the government doing to my money? What is it doing to your money? Over $34 trillion in government debt, and that number goes up with every tick of a clock. The cost of living is unsustainable, and the cost of everything from eggs to bread is going through the roof, no matter what the White House tells you. You can no longer trust the government or Wall Street or the bank. So how do you save now and for the future? Do what I did. Do your research. When I did my research, it led me to gold and silver, and that led me to Lear Capital, the leader in gold and silver since 1997. I know the folks at Lear. I work with the folks at Lear.

I trust the folks at Lear. How do you reach them? 800-511-4620 or learjudgenap.com. You'll have a very nice conversation with a very knowledgeable person. There's no high pressure. They will send you literature that you can share with your spouse and then you'll decide what to do. You might even qualify for $15,000 in bonus gold. Lear has been the leader in this area of investing for the past 25 years. 800-511-4620. And don't forget to ask about a gold IRA. Find out how diversifying your portfolio from stocks and bonds into gold and silver can give you peace of mind, the peace of mind you deserve. 800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com. And when you speak to these good folks, tell them the judge sent you. Karen, welcome here, my dear friend. Your time, of course, is much appreciated.

Before we get into a fascinating piece that you have published on Judge Knapp and elsewhere, judgeknapp.com, about is the United States government a Ponzi scheme? I want to touch base on Ukraine and on Israel. Starting with Ukraine, there seems to be a shakeup at the top. I don't know if it's instability or what it is, but President Zelensky is indicating, and I never heard of telegraphing a plan to fire, but he telegraphed a plan to fire General Zeluzhny last Thursday. He hasn't been fired yet. There's a lot of public dismay about the potential firing, and the supposed replacement, General Botanoff orenov, a 36-year-old general who

heads military intelligence. What do you make of this? Is this the way governments behave when the backs are against the wall and it's nearing the end? Yeah, it is. It's the way dictatorships do, and it's the way that unpopular, failing presidents lead when their backs are against the wall. And, you know, he's, I think he modified his firing of General Solutiony by saying, first, he's going to fire a whole bunch of the people that work for General Solutiony. And that certainly reveals a concern that he has about this very unpopular action that he seems to be taking. But, you know, he's desperate. I think maybe he thinks that the complaints from the West, from the United States

and the EU about corruption and waste and fraud within the military, maybe he thinks he can wash that all away by saying, oh, well, look, I got rid of all these folks. But I don't think the Ukrainians will see it that way. like that, I'm showing my fingers crossed, with MI6, which probably means with CIA, which probably means with Mossad, which probably means with the U.S. State Department. So if he's in charge of the military, what should we expect? Attacks inside the Russian border? We know what the CIA and what the State Department want. They want to use Ukraine, or at least they thought they could use Ukraine two years ago, as a battering ram with which to drive Vladimir Putin from office. Yeah, yeah, that's, it could be very dangerous in that regard. But there's another way, I mean, in terms of this Budenov helping make the war even more violent

and more deadly for Russians initially, but ultimately it'll be more deadly for Ukrainians. I mean, the mismatch in ability to wage war just keeps leaning more and more in favor of the Russians. So whatever they do, there's going to be a smack back. So that could happen. And certainly, I think there are politicians urging that kind of thing. But the other thing that if you think about Ukraine falling apart institutionally, which in many ways it already has, I mean, it's been under war, it's in war conditions, huge amounts of corruption, distrust, elections are suspended, they're under martial law, they've lost 17 million. Almost half of the population has left the country. So this is a country under great duress. And what better the finger pointing and the angst and the hatred and everything often turns inward to their own country. So a breakup could happen.

And we've got Poland sitting in the wings, ready to take charge of security in the western part of Ukraine. So there are a lot of reasons why, as this thing ends, you would want to have kind of a Stasi control situation that monitored domestically. I don't think they're going to have a lot of impact on Russia, but they could be planning for the next phase, which is a collapsed, shrunken, almost ungovernable Ukraine, at least temporarily until the U.S. and BlackRock starts flowing in, you know, the rebuilding and whatnot. Right, right. The Ukrainian parliament is debating whether or not to impose another draft, but they can oppose all the drafts they want if the human beings just aren't there

and alive and well and of age to be drafted. But this would be so immensely unpopular in this browbeaten country. It's hard to believe that even with martial law, the government could stay in power. Yeah, I think the government is collapsing. And like you said, this is an action of a desperate leader. This is not an action of a winning, confident, optimistic leader. It's the action of the complete opposite of that, which means, I hope, know if you saw this horrible, horrible photo. It's actually a video I saw still. I couldn't bring myself to watch the photo of an IDF soldier torturing a Palestinian captive. The IDF soldier took the video. This is, believe it or not, against IDF rules. It is, of course, a war crime to engage

in torture. It's a war crime to film torture. It's a war crime to send the film viral on the internet. And the IDF soldier identifies himself and identifies his victim. It's sickening. So I guess whatever the international court of justice ruled that has not tempered the avaricious appetite of the Netanyahu government for the slaughter of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. No, I mean, it seems like they're pushing the animal nature of the very worst aspect of war being executed by the IDF soldiers. And many of them are, you know, they're young. I mean, they're in their 20s and 30s. And they're participating in this with glee and with their country's backing because, honestly, they don't think they're fighting people. They think they are doing something that is just in the eyes of their Zionist government.

And they also have, there's nothing going to happen to them. I mean, you know, the United States, we did the same thing. We tortured, we have black sites everywhere. Some of that video leaked out. And nothing happened to us. Of course, they punished the people who leaked the information about what we were doing. And, you know, it's almost like power politics. You know, if you can get away with it, you do. That's what I think Israel's policy is, to do whatever they can get away with as rapidly as possible and hope for the best. You know, they fully intend to take the land. That's what they're doing. They fully intend to, I think, reduce the population of Gaza, of Palestinians anyway, by 90 percent. I think

that's been said. And clearly, I mean, they are now in the most southernmost city where they told all of the Gazans to go to. And that's where they're fighting now. So what they're doing is what they can get away with. And the rest of the worldpersons for the United States State Department about this incident of this IDF soldier filming himself torturing his captive. It's important to listen to all this, but don't expect a gratifying answer from the U.S. You were alarmed by the settlers' violence in the West Bank to the degree that you put sanctions on them.

Are you equally alarmed and disturbed by the Israeli army torture of Palestinians? There is immersion pictures that's horrifying. I'm sure you've seen this picture, but one of them is is basically an Israeli soldier and this is what we know of through the social media. You must have seen this picture. This soldier has been identified as his name is Yussi Gamzou and he is from the Nahal Brigade. This is a clear violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, etc. So just equally, as much as the violence of the settlers, this is the violence of an Israeli soldier.

This is an Israeli army that's an ally of the United States. This is acceptable to you. And what you do to hold these people accountable, this is what we know from the social media. The guy himself published this picture. Imagine the things that we don't know. Thanks, thanks for your question Nadia. So first as it relates to our sanctions you're absolutely right. Peaceability and security in the West Bank is of utmost importance to us and those participating in activities or actions that detract from that, that make the West Bank more destabilizing

and risk the security situation. That is, of course, of great concern to us. And that's why you saw the United States take appropriate action last week. In relation to the image that you shared, I've not seen that image specifically, but obviously it's deeply troubling. And his reply is almost as sickening as what the image portrays. Go ahead, Karen. Well, I mean, the State Department has no credibility abroad, any place around the world. And these reporters who are actually in Washington confronting representatives of our government realize that pretty much every word that they say is a lie. It's a political lie designed to support a policy that is both wrong and unpopular in the United States. I mean, this is the fact that we are not just condoning it, but supporting it with billions of dollars. In fact,

in fact, I think the House is trying to send more billions of dollars to Israel. So, you know, you would think that they could figure out a way to respond to this in a, in a more tie it to a, to an American mission, like saying, you know what, we're paying for this. We're going to get to the bottom of it. Yeah. How does the United States, how does the United States gain by defending this behavior or pretending to be indifferent to this behavior. I don't get it. Well, I think the diplomats in the past, where I think we had wise people who understood relations between both human beings and countries, I think those guys would be appalled at this because the bad will or the goodwill that is eliminated, any goodwill that

we've had up to this point, of course, we've been wasting it for years, but it eliminates any possibility of trust, any possibility of goodwill. It creates anger, distaste for the United States around the world. It's one thing if we grew all our own stuff and we had a little tight, a autarkic economy, but we don't, these people we trade with, we need the world. They don't like us. They don't like us because we do terrible, evil things and then lie about it. So, and this is another example, but we do it as a matter of course. I mean, I haven't seen a single, I've been waiting actually to see somebody from the State Department or one of these spokesmen to actually, you know, shake it off and say the truth, you know, for three seconds and then walk off the stage because knowing that they would be fired, why can't we have that? We

should have that in this country. That kind of courage doesn't seem to exist. Although I seem to recall 50 members of the State Department either blasting Blinken or going on strike or quitting. I don't think they quit. Let's go to what you and I have both been reading about. How is the United States government a Ponzi scheme, Colonel Kwiatkowski? Well, when we think of like Social Security, I think it's easier to understand that it's a Ponzi scheme. We take from the current investors to pay back past investors. So it has to always go forward. It's not holding resources. It's not generating resources. It's simply taking from one group to pay off a previous group that's been effectively lied to.

And so in that respect, I think Social Security fits that bill. Medicare and Medicaid fit those bills. You know, many of our welfare programs. But actually, what happened was I was listening to a crime show and they talked about clawback, which is the legal response when a Ponzi scheme is discovered and whether it implodes or it's reported or somehow. And the clawback goes after those that invest in it. And it occurred to me that we, the people, average Americans that are living today, we're the ones investing in this Ponzi scheme. And, you know, we look at victims of other Ponzi schemes and we say, well, yeah, they're victims, but they were promised a lot and they kind of took a risk and maybe they should have made better choices.

We can say that about an average Ponzi scheme victim. But in the United States, we're all victims and yet we are all slaves to the scheme because I don't know anyone who can avoid participating in the support of the United States government. And I think it reaches in even to our military activities. You know, you continue to pay the Pentagon and the stuff they've had in the past, they give that away to foreign countries or they stockpile it somewhere and continually buy new stuff. We're not, there's no, there's no real gain of value in any of the things that the government does in our name and with our money. How do, how do, well, when Ponzi schemes end, so when, when Bernie Madoff was caught,

the court engaged lawyers and accountants to engage in clawback, to go to the people whom Madoff had paid and to claw that money back and then to have a pool and then divide the pool up so that if you invested a million dollars with Madoff, you're not going to get the million back because it's gone, but you might get a percentage of the million back. But everybody suffered because he was literally borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. So Paul had to kick back what Paul earned from Madoff, and Peter got a percentage of what he invested in Madoff. Now, take that and multiply it by tens of thousands, the Peters and the Pauls, and that's the Bernie Madoff scheme. In the American scheme,

multiply it by hundreds of millions of people who put money in. FDR's promise was, we will hold your dollars for you in a savings account. Baloney, they didn't hold a nickel. They just put it in the treasury and spent it. And then when you turned 65 or whatever the rule was at the time, and you were entitled to Social Security, they started paying you. What are they paying you with? The money that young people were putting in. You might not be old enough, but I am, to remember Barry Goldwater running against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, suggesting that Social Security should be voluntary, that you should be able to do what you want with your own money. Well, you would have thought that he was inviting the Chinese to invade California the way he was treated for saying that. But this clawback could be dangerous if the United States government

collapses, couldn't it? Well, that's right. And the way I understand it, and I could be wrong, but it's not just clawing back those who have received recent payouts. They certainly go after those. But it's also taking the resources of recent investors. So, you know, your last year of paying social security, that's also part of what is taken from you. And so in a practical way, maybe they can't take it, but in a kind of overview way or a grand way, the resources are being, any resources that are left are all going to be sucked out and then redistributed. So Ponzi scheme, I think it fits. I think a lot of people think of our government today in that way. But when you connect that to The Great Taking, which is a short book that's free

on the internet, thegreattaking.com, I guess in many other places. It talks about how investments are collateralized. And then it talks about the order of collecting the resources in the case that it collapses, whether it's Ponzi scheme collapse or just market collapse or anything else. And what this guy writes about, a guy named Mr. Webb, he explains how the deck is stacked. Now, many of us already think the deck is stacked. I mean, we kind of think that way.

But he explains how it's stacked and how legally most things of value are not going to be clawed back or seized by anybody except the same people that are running the scheme right now. So that is a very impoverishing vision for the United States, for the people of this country, people who are struggling to have whatever they have, whether it's trying to pay off a mortgage or hold on to one they paid off some years ago as taxes and insurance and everything rises, cost of living rises. So people, most people in this country, not the very rich, but the average person, he doesn't have a huge amount of things. He has what he has and he holds it dear and he's

a little worried about it. And yet every bit of that, it's almost inhuman. And I think that's that Webb sees it this way as well. Very much an inhumane kind of disillusionment. Let me ask you this. Did you invest in Social Security? Of course not. Nobody invests in Social Security. They just take it from you. Yeah, they do take it. But technically, when the court will look at it as we invested, we invested. We're investors, so we're going to get pennies on the dollar. Now, most people, younger baby boomers and those younger than the youngest baby boomers, those generations realize that they won't get the real value of anything that they put in. I mean, it'll be inflated away, which has been a tool. Inflation has been a tool for impoverishing and

helping support the Ponzi scheme. They can give back to people dollars that are worth far, far less than the original investment. So that works out well for them. But I think it's unsustainable. There's never been an eternal Ponzi scheme, just like there's never been an eternal empire. At some point they have to end. killed in Jordan and the 37 that were injured at this place called Tower 22, that it was not a drone that was mistaken for an American drone. It was just totally undetected. Nobody saw it. Nobody was watching.

Nobody was paying attention. So no surprise, Karen, the original Pentagon and State Department explanation has now been proven false. My question to you, does the U.S. government intentionally put troops into harm's way as it's sort of an inverse false flag so that it can start a war when those troops are attacked. Why do I say that? Because when John Kirby, Admiral Kirby, Spokesperson Kirby, was asked, where's the military authorization for this? He said, well, we don't need a military, congressional authorization for this. We were defending our troops.

Yeah, yeah. I think probably they do intentionally put Americans everywhere they possibly can in case they need, whether it's a false flag or just an excuse for a response. putting at risk American assets, American people inside of the United States, you know, fake terrorist attacks that kill Americans in order to cause support for a particular foreign policy reaction or domestic policy reaction. And 9-11 comes to mind. I'm not saying that was a false flag, but certainly it popularized things that otherwise would have not been popular in this country, Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, those kinds of things. So I think it is part of a strategy that emanates from the way the CIA views security. I don't think it comes from a strategy from the Pentagon. I think when the

Pentagon puts people out there, I think they, much like the State Department, they are concerned about security. They're concerned about uncontrolled ability to respond to a terrorist attack. I think the Pentagon and the State Department both think in a conservative way. Now, granted, we have soldiers everywhere. We have State Department people everywhere. But the CIA does not think that way. The CIA thinks very much in terms of a strategy of global control, a strategy of domestic control of the politicians and being able to manipulate. So for this, for I think many in the

CIA in the old days and in today's day, also politicians like Lindsey Graham, you know, they look at our soldiers and our employees of our government being out there everywhere as a useful and good thing. They see it as a risk that not just the people have volunteered to take, but that the state can benefit from, that Lindsey Graham can benefit from, that the CIA can benefit from. And that the military industrial complex can benefit from using inflated dollars and money borrowed from the Chinese. Karen, it's a pleasure to hear from whatever we're talking about, whether it's Economics 101 or Economics 105 or the slaughter of innocents in the Middle East. Thank you very much for joining us. Look forward to having you back next week. Absolutely. Thank you, Judge.

Of course. To me, a fascinating conversation. I can see that a lot of you appreciate it as well. Coming up at 4.30 Eastern, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.